Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 2 August	4 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Delaware USA. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Benton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sheena Benton is just a run-of-the-mill state beauty pageant winner. There seems to be developing a clear consensus that such people are not notable. Her pre-win drunk driving arrest does not seem to change that. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning the Miss Delaware pageant is insufficient to impute notability unlike winners of national or international pageants. Quis separabit? 20:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typically winning a top U.S. state pageant like Miss Delaware is found to meet WP:GNG at AFD. This is Miss Delaware USA. She also has a somewhat negative reason for notability so I'm not going to work to improve this one, though I am sure it could be done.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most recent discussion are finding that winning a state level Miss USA pageant is not enough by itself to pass notability. GNG requires sources, and there does not seem to be the level of sourcing for these individuals to justify the article. Such articles as those on Sloan Bailey and Janice McDonald have been deleted for these reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Delaware USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects only known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winner). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wirraminna Environmental Education Centre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local project with only local references. Not notable and written in a promotional style. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable project of local renown. Sources do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits showing very limited coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelikes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for Speedy Deletion under A7 - author continually removes Speedy Deletion tags Exemplo347 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obviously made up by the creator. No coverage at all. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL applies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky behaviour going on. I have warned both editors who are coordinating to remove the speedy templates. Diff1 and Diff2. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria A1, A3, and A11. The article does not provide sufficient context to the reader at all, is just an attempt to correspond with the title (in violation of the minimal stub length), and clearly indicates the subject was made up, with no sources whatsoever. Heat Is Cool 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Feel free to delete. This is not a made up article, this article is factually correct in the sense that everything that has been said in it is true. I know this as I am one of the producers for this show, hence why I created the page. Every time I tried to add something information appeared to have been changed before I'd even had the chance to correct or do anything about it. Let alone read it.

The show is already in production, promo shots complete, but no press release as of yet. I appreciate the page may have been created a little early but I didn't think it would cause this much of a problem. So feel free to delete the page as soon and as swiftly as possible.
Oh and by the way if anyone other user has been working on the page at the same time as I have that is nothing to do with me and you should approach the relevant user directly although there may not be much point anymore.

Thanks for your understanding.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealikez (talk • contribs)

Moved from top --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bey Logan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, with no assertion of notability, or sources to verify content, along with myriad WP:NOTINHERITED issues. Can't be re-written without reliance on personal interviews, IMDB and non-RS (and primary) sources. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's surprising that this article has survived for so long with no evidence of notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I wrote the article back before I really understood Wikipedia. I would have AFDded the page myself if I agreed that it didn't meet GNG, but virtually any fan of HK cinema in the UK and Ireland will have heard of him, as he did virtually all the audio commentaries for Hong Kong Legends, and has written several books on the subject. It's not true that the article makes no assertion of notability, as these points are made in the article. But it is true that it would be difficult to rewrite it as a proper biography without using primary sources. I would say redirect, but he's attained semi-notability for a whole bunch of little things that would not make appropriate redirect locations by themselves. So I'm cool with it being deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That said, it definitely could be rewritten with the biographical statements he peppers on various audio commentaries (that I doubt any of the previous delete !votes have heard); these are primary sources and are not ideal, but are not non-RS. I largely grew out of them eight or nine years ago, though, and only brought like five of the relevant DVDs with me when I came to Japan, so doing it myself (right now) is out of the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs trimming to what is sourceable, but Logan is an acknowledged expert in his field and well enough known to be included. Some sources that could be used: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 is a primary source (by the subject), 2 is a column written by the subject himself, 3 is an event listing with 1 sentence about the subject, 4 is a book review but the coverage about the author is sparse, 5 is an interview again and a primary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still not enough for any actual convincing independent notability, even the sources listed here above, the first one is an immediate interview. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bit of an unfortunate case as there are clearly scarce reliable secondary sources to prove notability. On the other hand, we do have primary sources. I though for a while but I think I will go with the fact that reliable secondary sources are needed for notability. There isn't one particular redirect target either, otherwise I would have recommended it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isobar (company)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This is nothing but a list of acquisitions, alliances, and otherwise NN execs, based on press releases. It doesn't even assert that it's anything more than a subsidiary entity. MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article is all promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable corporation lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk)
Delete - it barely states what it is, just press puffery of expansions etc. MPJ-DK 02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I know I've encountered this article before, I frankly consider this G11 material entirely. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A first glance at the search results may seem like a lot of coverage, but if you dig down you will find that the sources are either reprinting press releases, are not reliable or fail WP:AUD. This is simply a non-notable subsidiary company and I see no reason to keep it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dentsu}} as a more appropriate place. In a business article,a list of merges is very appropriate content and not in the least promotional; it's the basic atuff of business history. Similarly for the succession of CEOs Still, there's no reason for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that will cause UNDUE. Yes, succession is important, but if all that you have is M&A and CEO succession, what do you actually do for business? More importantly, they're not really a Dentsu sub; they're a member of a network of agencies, and that network is the Dentsu sub. So you're proposing a two-level upmerge to a company that doesn't have the correct sort of relationship that would make it appropriate to feature this agency over any others in the network in the Dentsu article. MSJapan (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, it might be better merged one step to Dentsu Aegis Network (an article which needs some major fixing, btw. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' I have added two new references to the article. I did a bit of googling research and this company looks to be a multi national company that is well regarded. I am planning to refashion the article more in a prose format to include some better referencing. I will attempt to tone down any advert or promo type info. I think the article should be kept on since the company itself is covered in depth in many newspapers and at many places that are considered reliable sources. Donald1659 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does satisfy WP:GNG since the company has gotten significant coverage in numerous publications that are considered as reliable sources. Also the company has gotten several awards as noted in the article with sources and proper citation. Donald1659 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards are all non-notable. The sources consist of a bunch of trade magazines redressing press releases. That doesn't help. You may wish to read CORPDEPTH again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- random user here. Found this article useful. No knowledge of CORPDEPTH to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgwald (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this vote. Lack of policy knowledge aside, the user has made eight edits in three years, none substantial. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am sorry to interrupt, but why would a discussion/ vote comment be ignored from a member of three years? What is the number of edits you need to have in order for your words and vote to count? As far as corporate depth, I have read it a few times despite the lady above suggesting for me to read it. I also have read and studied the policy of WP:GNG. Now I could be wrong, but it looks like if the article or subject meets GNG, it would not always have to completely fulfill corp depth. I thank you all for your patience with me. I am trying to understand and learn about these policies. Donald1659 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because sometimes people count the votes instead of looking at the content even though they are supposed to evaluate the vote content, and someone who has eight edits in three years and admits no understanding of content policy is not voting in good faith. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a moment to explain that Ma'am. Donald1659 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per others. WP:ARTSPAM by COI editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing platform. Citobun (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and the listed awards are not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Unable to find more than trivial one-liners. Even de company's own website lacks in-depth background, e.g. history. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ScienCell Research Laboratories[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has primarily been written by individuals who appear to work for the company the article is about. 90% of the article is just a list of products they manufacture and countries in which they distribute. Additionally nothing in the article indicates notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

see this diff where Smallasian identifies themselves as working for the company.
see [7] where Thirsty2k claims to be the owner of the website.
see this one where an anonymous editor removed a "we" statement that was added by Thirsty2k. Yet another example of WP:PROMOTION.

These indicate not only WP:COI but also a propensity towards WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I've declared my COI on my user page and the ScienCell page (I think) and am still working on the general page in terms of referencing notability and adding a blurb about the company's history. At this point though, I'm just afraid to do anything. I'd at least like to address the concern about the page being a products list. Am I allowed to delete the bulleted list of cell types and research areas to replace it with something much more general while it's being reviewed? Sorry, and thanks! Smallasian (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe that anybody is going to raise any concerns if you delete content, provided that it doesn't skew the meaning of the remaining text. Removing the list of cell types and the very boring list of locations could only improve the article. That is, of course, not the same as making it notable. I will reserve my view on that issue for a while. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been Numerous edits on the page and added references for notibility, please review and reply with what it lacks, thanks and regards. - thirsty2k —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only is this advertorial, I frankly see no signs there can be any needed improvements for guaranteed acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem in this particular case is notability. I see some claims of significance, but none of notability. We are very clear that companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, it would require reliable independent souces which talk about the company in detail. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. I also see that some of the sources don't satisfy WP:AUD. This article would have been rejected at AFC as well, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a replica of a corporate website; there's insufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richhill A.F.C.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by the author but this club is still not actually notable given that it's not notable as listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (Richhill's league is not notable). SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article does meet the club notability criterion, i.e. 'All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria'. The club is drawn in the first round of the Irish Cup, the national cup of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess from the wording ("still not actually notable") that the club has been listed as their debut match in the 2016-17 Irish Cup is scheduled for 20th August 2016, and the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is" teams that have played in the national cup"? This seems unnecessary pedantry - keep. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have played in Irish Cup as per this and this .Note this club is not drawn in the First round of the 2016–17 Irish Cup but have received a Bye to play in the 2nd round as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.F.C. Silverwood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by the author but this club is still not actually notable for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article does meet the club notability criterion, i.e. 'All teams that have played in the national cup are assumed to meet WP:N criteria'. The club is drawn in the first round of the Irish Cup, the national cup of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess from the wording ("still not actually notable") that the club has been listed as their debut match in the 2016-17 Irish Cup is scheduled for 20th August 2016, and the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is" teams that have played in the national cup"? This seems unnecessary pedantry - keep. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above it is playing against Portaferry Rovers on 20th August 2016 in the 2016-17 Irish Cup per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Horde and the Harem[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly NN band (with a dead "official" site) easily failing WP:MUSIC. I think WP:GNG is pretty much a stretch for this band since while there is plenty of announcements of upcoming shows, I haven't been able to find anything beyond The Drainage and bestnewbands.com articles with any in-depth coverage more than a paragraph or so on obscure pubs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest they meet WP:BAND. Bands like this come and go all of the time, and they've not had any substantial coverage from major sources. The sum of their coverage is a single live review by a small-to-medium sized music blog and a couple of stream posts, not enough at all. KaisaL (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is there nothing actually convincing for the current article, my searches are simply finding trivial links, nothing at all improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see enough coverage to establish notability, and there's no indication that any of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC are met. --Michig (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Ernst Peekhaus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

German designer of Nazi military medals. That sums up everything that is known about him, apparently, and as a result I don't think he meets WP:N.

The article (which I briefly tried to copyedit before giving up) has or had basically one line about the man, and the rest is fanwankery about the Nazi medals he designed (a particularly disturbing topic to fanwank about). Coverage of him found in Google appears limited to passing mentions in the vein of "medal X designed by Peekhaus". References in the article are to such quality sources as "wehrmacht-awards.com", an apparently self-published, er, fan site. The reference to the book by Williamson is also a one-line passing mention, according to Google's preview: "Top designers, such as Wilhelm Ernst Peekhaus of Berlin, were ...". There's just not enough material here for a biographical article. Sandstein 20:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quite a lot of Google Books sources about the guy, but none of them really say more than mentioning him while describing the medals he designed. Not voting yet but I lean towards deleting unless some really good sources turn up about his life and work. Blythwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources do not suggest notability, and the content of the article is not really about the subject, as described. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for a stand alone article given the only "passing mentions"; with that said, his name should be mentioned/noted in the articles where it is known that he designed those specific awards and badges. Kierzek (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any published sources that say anything about Peekhaus beyond which medals he designed. Mduvekot (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dwarf deities#Haela Brightaxe. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haela Brightaxe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character article currently does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim details and Merge to Dwarf deities. Three minor TSR/Wizards sources with no independent coverage to show notability. Same as always. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above Dwarf deities#Haela Brightaxe exists and is the logical WP:SS parent for this not-individually-notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Honulik[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The survival this article experienced at the previous deletion discussion for about 15 articles shows that in such mass discussions people are willing to accept way too broad a definition of reliaable sources giving substantial coverage. One source is a website based in Wilton, Connecticut. The link no longer works, but it appears that this may have been where Honulik lived, and is an extremely local source. The Seattle Post-Inteligencer printed a pciture of her, but nothing else substantial, and it seems this was just one of many pictures taken at the competition. The Fairfield Citizen, the local paper for the greater NYC suburb she lived in in 2015, ran an article about her being one of 22 women competing in a reality television show. Although she came close to winning, she didn't, and the show does not even rate an article in Wikipedia. None of this is the type of coverage we would want to show that someone is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article made the one edit to wikipedia of starting this article. I am not sure if this is at all relevant to the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)q[reply]
Comment Noteworthiness is questionable; I'm leaning toward deletion. There's little of substance published on the subject. Majoreditor (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm unsure why I was tagged in this, given that I made a grand total of 4 edits here before today. Also, I found an archive version of the dead link and fixed that.--Auric talk 23:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. The coverage is quite sparse. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Connecticut USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Coverage is sparse.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Manchin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:JUNK Ethanlu121 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable with some non-arranged links.--Yufitran (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the first time I've seen an Afd from this editor with all-of-one-word link to the essay WP:JUNK. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. As for this "non-arranged link" argument, we don't delete articles because of style issues. There are some minor Billboard reviews, with this one being the largest. Canadian music weekly Exclaim! has this capsule review. Yes, a cogent argument could be made that Manchin fails to meet our guidelines. I just wish the nominator could be bothered to make one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Manchin is a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Per nom." Boy, so much thought put into both! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's claim to notability is to be one of half a million members of ASCAP. That's about as run of the mill as you can get. The Billboard article references the fact that he is "unsigned" and "regional", meaning the subject is up and coming. The 2002 Exclaim review is quite short. Just to be sure, I found a few sources that show some notability. However, even if he were notable, this stub is a huge mess. If somebody wants to rescue this, please do so soon. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I share Shawn in Montreal's opprobrium for such poorly formatted and uninformative nomination statements — WP:JUNK is not a deletion rationale in and of itself, because "junk" articles can be repaired and kept if proper sourcing and a legitimate notability claim exist to salvage them with. I'll grant that this is not a good or well-formatted article as written, but that's got nothing to do with its keepability or lack thereof — what is determinative here, rather, is that there isn't enough quality sourcing, or a substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, to fix it with. Capsule reviews in Billboard and Exclaim! are a start, but they don't singlehandedly get him to the finish line and I'm not finding anything else that does. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Mudry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mudry is a little different from other state Miss USA winners, since she is a perenial compoetitor. However a bunch of runner-up titles and a state Mrs. America title do not seem to be enough to make being a beauty pageant contestant move into the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss Connecticut USA instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Phillips[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Phillips being state Miss USA is an example of one event. The fact that the article talks about what her aspirations are, instead of what she can be shown to have done, shows how totally unencyclopedic it is. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My news sweeps didn't turn up sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Connecticut USA. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Mandak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than having won her state Miss USA contest, which is not enough on its own to make Mandak notable, she has been a local news and traffic reporters on TV, and a zumba instructor. We have more information on her than on some former state pageant winners, but nothing that suggests she is other than non-notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Apparently it's ~~madness~~ a hoax, not Sparta. (Sorry, couldn't help making the obligatory 300 joke.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta OS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DUCK hoax. ⁓ Hello 71 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: G3 as a hoax. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lenk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer; more or less completely fails WP:NBOX. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He meets neither WP:NBOX nor WP:GNG. The coverage is simply routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX. Coverage is routine sports reporting or links to his fight record so also fails GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonelle Layfield[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Layfield was first nominated in a discussion back in January 2015. That is one of the longest discussions on this subject. However it shed a lot less light on this subject than would be hoped. The nominator asserted that the notability guidelines for entertainers apply, on the argument that beauty pageant winners are models, and models are covered under those guidlines. However it seems this assertion was largely built on the assumption that a winner of a state-wide Miss USA contest will recieve coverage in all the major newspapers of the state. This has actually from experience been shown to normally not be the case. Even if it was, it would be hard to move this beyond the one event. One big problem is that there are two major competing pageants, Miss USA and Miss America, with their own sets of state winners. Miss America actually seems to be the more important one historically, so there may be more arguments for state pageant winners to be notable there than with Miss USA. The sourcing here is the pageants own website, which probably cannot count as 3rd party enough. Even if it could, the NBC article seems it may well be a mass listing of all contestants. It takes the most favorable interpretation of multiple, 3rd party sources to say this article has them, and even then only two, and nothing comes close to overcoming the one event problem. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment: What I am seeing are state pageant navboxes. (Alaska earlier, now Hawaii) Someone is trying to do articles on every state level pageant winner. I think there may need to be a RfC on this issue; either all in or all out unless they have additional GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as a stand alone article; I can see her name being named/mentioned in the articles on the Miss Hawaii USA and Miss USA, but that is all. Otherwise, trivia. Kierzek (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is more like back in 2008 or so there was an attempt to do articles on every state pageant winner. Almost no effort has put into creating such articles for the last 6 or more years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much except there is a mention here. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with alll prizes, state winners are not necessarily notable . DGG ( talk ) 13:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soorna[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NWEB with no secondary sources, and has been flagged as such for three years. A Google search for the URL returns only 83 results, all of them autogenerated stats sites. (soorna.com itself appears to have been offline since March 2016.) User:DGG rejected an earlier prod asking "Have Persian language sources been checked?" - I assume a Google URL search would show up something, if Iranian sources existed online, as seems to be the case when checking a more notable Iranian social network Balatarin. McGeddon (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable website. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable website with a high Alexa ranking--Yufitran (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable website. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Luna Jr.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer; fails all criteria for WP:NBOX. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks the accomplishments needed to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG is not met because the coverage is merely routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a boxer and fails GNG. Appearing in a televised fight does not guarantee notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Carroll[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous nomination failed because it was a mass nomination of 15 articles a year and a half ago. It closed keep because people were not willing to individually examine each article. The article has 5 sources. 2 are official profiles. The other three are 2 articles from the News-Miner, a paper of just under 10,000 circulation based in Fairbanks, where she was a university student, and another from a radio station in Fairbanks. They all focus on her roles in the Miss USA competition, so it amounts to coverage for one event. The article has a line "Caroll is a Political Science student at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks." The link to the paper website does not work, so I cannot figure out a key question. Carroll was 25 at the time, so was she an undergrad or a graduate student. Both scenarios are possible, but no clear indication is given. Either way, she is probably not a student 8 years later, maybe if she is now pursuing a Ph.D., but was not at that time. However what is clear is she is not important enough for anyone to have bothered to update the information from 8 years ago. This is a strong indication that Carroll just is not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: If additional sources can be found, I'd be willing to reconsider. But as it sits, state-level pageant winner. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I browsed in graduation names lists at UAF and did not find her name. I added to the article that in 2011, she was pursuing an acting career in Los Angeles,^[1] and that by 2015, she had accumulated four acting credits, had stunts and art department credits.^[2] She also has performed stunts in several productions and has one art department credit.^[2] With the other references^[3]^[4]^[5] that makes five.

I could go either way, keep or not. --do ncr am 18:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her four TV/film credits are all in works we lack articles on. I cannot comment on whether they were important to the works. Most stunt people are not notable, and we lack any sources that suggest she is an exception to that rule. The added sources all suggest Carroll is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches did not turn up anything. (comment by Tomwsulcer)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. especially because of the absence of anything in her career since the event that might indicate any notability DGG ( talk ) 13:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

References

^ [1]
^ ^a ^b IMDB page
^ "UAF student wins Miss Alaska USA crown". KTUU.com. 2007-12-17.
^ "Fairbanks woman named "Miss Photogenic USA" at pageant". Daily News Miner. 2008-04-11.
^ Peterson, Michelle (2008-04-11). "Fairbanks student competes tonight for Miss USA crown". Daily News Miner.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of neuroscience databases. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience resources[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't really what Wikipedia's for, is it? I can't think of a policy off the top of my head, but I'm sure it falls foul of one of them- we can't have an "article" which just links to news sites about neuroscience and blogs. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of neuroscience databases. This article has overlap with List of neuroscience databases and it is not clear to me how the resources listed are not databases. Hence, it seems best to merge to the better developed list. --Mark viking (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge WP:Repository. Millbug ^talk 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mark Viking, Merge if someone is willing to do this, delete if not. Blythwood (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to perform the merge if that becomes the consensus. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Thank you, Mark Viking. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Alaska USA. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Louise Rowley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rowley was Miss Alaska USA 1969, and in 1970 was highered as a flight attendant by Northwest airlines. The article has been tagged for inadequate sources since 2011. Nothing suggests there is anything about Rowley that would actually make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition there may be a conflict of interest in the creation. The article was created by a user account, Miss Alaska 1969, and this is the only edit ever done by that account.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable enough as Miss Alaska or of course her career as a flight attendant. Meatsgains (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stand alone article, not notable; is mentioned in the Miss Alaska USA article, which is enough. Kierzek (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alaska USA; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Bly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She won Miss Alaska USA back in 1960. That is the only thing about her that is at all notable. Her being in the category living people may or may not be accurate, but there is no indication anyone has paid any attention to her life in the last 65 years to know. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks notability. Miss Alaska is not notable enough to warrant a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I'd be willing to change my mind on this one, given that it was 1960 and there is apt to be a paucity of sources. At the very least, I hope there is a Miss USA 1960 page (or Miss America, whichever this was) where the name can be listed. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Can be mentioned in Miss Alaska USA article. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is Miss USA 1960, but it only lists the 15 top delegates who placed, Bly was not one of those. There is no inherent reason the page cannot be expanded. On another note, I am very familiar with information regardling Latter-day Saints. I know the two Latter-day Saints who won Miss America both merited inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History. Sharlene Wells Hawkes is a household name in Mormon circles, but the fact that I personally knew her brother and nieces, and the fact that her father was a general authority in the LDS Church make this hard to attribute just to her. On the other hand I remember reading as a freshman at BYU an article in the university paper where they quoted her lamenting that the school no longer had a homecoming queen. That was in 1999, 14 years after her 1999 win.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough notability nor contents for a stand alone article. Cavarrone 15:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Madera[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are two sources, both connected with pageants. Madera's only claim to notability is that she won the state Miss USA pageant. That is just not enough by itself to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: State-level pageant winner. TOOSOON at best. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, state-level pageant winners are not inherently notable. --Cavarrone 16:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My sweeps didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Cricket Club[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and now-merged cricket club; full of non-notable trivia Johnlp (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And there seems to be some serious BLP-violations with the notes field for the players to boot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. I've lived in Tile Hill and never heard of them before. Joseph2302 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comint consulting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources used are based on namedrop refs to the CEO, and establish nothing shown in the article besides the name of the company and its CEO. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH by a really wide margin. Hardly any significant coverage in reliable sources. Also the article creator seems to be an undisclosed paid editor. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The given 3rd party reference is a passing mention, and my searches are identifying nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical corporate spam with no notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alia bint Khalifa bin Saeed al Maktoum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as a racehorse owner and member of a royal family. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Falah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Appears to only be related to notable people. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)~~ I withdrew this nomination Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Explanation, I did this as I found that he does appear to be notable, but the article has been coatracked Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: perfect example of notability not being hereditable. Quis separabit? 20:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC) -- Withdrawn in light of nominator's withdrawal of AfD. Quis separabit? 23:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The individual that contested the PROD has not only argued to delete here, but is also now indefinitely blocked as a confirmed WP:SOCK. Given how there is no reasonable assertion of notability in the article, and given that the only editor was the aforementioned sock, I am closing early. See also WP:SNOW. KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Blast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This is a fictional element in Jimmy Neutron cartoons, with no evidence of independent notability. I considered a redirect, but the term is not discussed in the master article and a google search shows that it is used in other contexts (quizzes, Final Fantasy etc). There doesn't appear to be a good place to merge either; adding this to the main article would give it undue weight. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One feature or joke from a show shouldn't have an article, unless it has been the topic of serious secondary coverage. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how is this even a question?! Just put this information on Jimmy Neutron. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nothing about this suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at least anything either internal or external word. ABS CBN 20:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier Cales (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict × 2) Delete: non-notable person. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:BLP, a core policy, mandates: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." As the nomination points out, and the "keep" opinions largely ignore, this article fails these requirements because it is only sourced to the non-independent game company and a page on the website of a store that sells the game. Because of the overriding importance of WP:BLP, this discussion must be closed as "delete" by administrative supervote, regardless of the opinions expressed in the discussion. Sandstein 11:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - This isn't a social media site... No need to list every player of a game who has won some money. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the subject-specific criteria here (200+ pro points) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudging Keep I would say that the player is at least arguably successful enough in his field to warrant a page. I have heard of pro golfers who have make less than that. At any rate is there a Magic Wiki expert editor who would be able to weigh in? I do not know enough about the subject. Dolotta (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably as close to an expert as we are likely to get on the subject matter. Sam black, and indeed all of the players that Lavabaron has nominated, are giants of professional magic, and meet the subject-specific notability guidelines. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Looking for better sourcing... Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep number of appearances in non-Wizards M:tG sites, including some critical of him, substantiates Tazerdadog's argument. Since the entire game/league is owned by one company, independence in sourcing is particularly problematic in M:tG topics. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even know the basic biographical details of this guy: date and place of birth, for example. For someone who's supposedly "notable" that's a red flag. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth added to the article. I'm not sure why place of birth is even in the template, it seems completely random to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See the closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Black (Magic: The Gathering player). Sandstein 11:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cox (Magic: The Gathering player)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and BLP. Nothing notable about this individual. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets thesubject-specific criteria here (200 Pro Points) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not policy. That is something on WP:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering, an obscure Wikiproject with not single listed participant. A Google News search for the terms "Patrick Cox" and "Magic: The Gathering" yield absolutely nothing. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

102 participants in the WikiProject are listed here. The sources are there if you dig. (e.g.) [8] (audio interview), [9] Tazerdadog (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no widespread consensus to overturn GNG for more specific characters for players of this particular game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Buehler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has 14 citations, half of them are to the company website of Wizards of the Coast, the other half are to the company website for Mind Control Software. One is to an online discussion forum. This won't work at all for a BLP. I did a Google News search 2008 to present and found one mention on ArsTechnica. A search of Google Books finds four (4) incidental mentions, though a couple titles are self-published titles and none give any depth. LavaBaron (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice while it's this badly-referenced for a BLP. He may well be noteworthy, but so far this isn't backed and the article just isn't referenced to BLP standard - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to WP:DRAFTs to allow more time to find sources. BOZ (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a multi-county newspaper article about his tournament career, this discusses his strategies as a winning tournament player, this discusses how he came to lead the MtG development team, this and this quote him in an RS, but it aren't about him. So yeah, GNG is met by a mile and the article could sure use more work. Note that all of these hits were based on the first page of the AfDsources tools--not a whole lot of digging was required. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, He meets the subject-specific criteria here (Hall of famer), and meets the GNG besides that. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the good work by Jclemens above. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThisisDA[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSBIO. for (;;) (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: here's the quote from Clash [10] and there is the article in Complex as well, so there are two RS available. But they are the only two things that might pass WP:MUSICBIO, and I really don't know that there is enough there in both of them to be able to say anything of substance. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment not my field, but I interpret the Clash article as saying he's a new artist who might be notable someday. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – even though he's been around a couple of years, it still feels a bit WP:TOOSOON to have a article about him. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy to dissect this sources even if the "we" suggests a conflict of interest. The MTV link is simply a post of a video, based no doubt on a received press release. Hundreds of these are published and they're not substantial coverage. Amazing Radio is not a suitable source for establishing notability, as it's a radio station with a small listenership that focuses on unsigned artists, by its very definition covering the sort of acts that aren't important enough for Wikipedia yet. One performance at a gallery wouldn't be enough either, and their website is not a reliable source because it's primary. The fourth one is a Tweet. The fifth is the new music section of a magazine and, again, lots and lots of bands go through there and the majority of them are not yet independently notable. The sixth one is again a tweet. As for expressing what might justify an article, it's substantial coverage via reliable sources. None of this is. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't enough coverage here to justify inclusion, and the list of links provided in this AFD is stretching at best. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are woefully unequipped for dealing with bands, when in this day and age lots and lots get brief snippets of coverage in irrelevant corners of magazines or in the bowels of significant websites, and this always pops up as evidence of relevant coverage. Most of that coverage is a result of a PR agency or artist management submitting content to websites that then re-publish it for easy content; It isn't substantial or in-depth, and it isn't prominently located. Clash and Crack themselves are somewhere in the middle for prominence, but a passing mention in a section that isn't dedicated to the artist isn't exactly enough. KaisaL (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk) That's justified. We were looking at the press coverage and reach of the networks as relevant to notability. The discussion and page can be closed — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingYF1313 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Software Enterprises[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent references Maproom (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertorial and I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Typical "corporate spam": "global provider of software platforms for enterprise mobility", "Global Presence" etc etc. Put another way, insufficient sources for GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company is kind of notable, but this article is clearly written as advertisement or company press release. No prejudice for recreation in case of better article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. not much participation, but enough for consensus DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Antkow[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article gives no evidence of notability. A quick look at google gave just 1730 (effectively 210) hits, what is not a good indicator of notability. Most sources available state that he is part of a team, so fail in my opinion WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and nothing to show how the subject is a notable game developer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in reliable sources is clearly lacking here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology. There's not strictly a consensus for the redirect, but WP:ATD argues for that in lieu of deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric astrology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources for this article are three books of nonsense. There is no evidence that this subject is considered real or important even among the astrology community, who, FSM knows, have low enough standards. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - doesn't seem to be any non-fringe coverage.I originally voted straight delete but redirect seems possible also per Revent. Blythwood (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article was merged to Alice Bailey#Esoteric astrology in 2012, after discussion, and that article includes all the text that has not been removed as unencyclopedic. Restore the redirect. Revent^talk 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. There is a clear split of opinion. Editors arguing for delete have criticised that this list is indiscriminate, is arranged in an unhelpful arbitrary manner, and duplicates information already on other lists. In contrast, editors arguing for keep have vouched for the usefulness of this list on top of other lists of aircrafts and that the solution to the list's incompleteness is by rework (expansion, reorganisation and pruning with well-defined criteria; fork into list of lists etc) not deletion. So I'm closing this as no consensus, default to keep with a recommendation to rework the contents of this list. Editors who participated in this AfD are encouraged to improve this list; and if the scope of this list doesn't change substantially in a year, renomination at AfD should be permitted. Deryck C. 16:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft by date and usage category[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indiscriminate list with no defined inclusion criteria and no clear definition even of what the article title means. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a hopelessly indiscriminate list which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would contain every aircraft ever built, sorted into arbitrary categories delineated by arbitrary time periods. There are no defined criteria; for example the arbitrary category "Research, prototypes and specials" contains air racers, piston-engine fighters, airliners, jet fighters, flying boats, aircraft that entered production, bombers, the Wright Flyer, the Space Shuttle (those two are very similar) and helicopters among others. That category alone could justifiably include several thousand one-off aircraft, some of which could be added to other categories as well as they fit multiple categories, for example the Spruce Goose could be included in four or five different categories. The de Havilland Mosquito was used as a bomber, a fighter, a military transport aircraft, a civilian transport aircraft, a military air support aircraft and a reconnaissance aircraft, and was also used postwar in civil general aviation roles. Many aircraft currently in the lists are arguably in the wrong category. As there is room for such arguments, the essential arbitrariness will probably generate never-ending discussion for no useful result. Many of the links are to manufacturers and not aircraft; this issue at least can be fixed, the rest cannot. YSSYguy (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this never-ending discussion? The list has existed since 2003, it's read by thousands of people every month but the talk page seems reasonably quiet. If this list is not perfect, then where should I go instead to browse such information? Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to browse Category:Lists of aircraft you will find many such lists. Many are sortable, or at least inherently so, which makes them far more useful than this one can ever be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are lots of lists of aircraft as the general idea obviously passes WP:LISTN. Most of them seem to be quite silly like List of aircraft (0-A) which doesn't contain any aircraft at all. This list has a fairly obvious and sensible structure, organising the major aircraft types by period and function – airliners, bombers, fighters &c. As such, it's much more useful for browsing than than the absurd alphabetic tree which assumes that you already know what you're looking for and so seems quite pointless. The list has existed since 2003 and doesn't seem at all controversial – notice that this is the first AFD in all that time. If there's a better way of organising this then per WP:PRESERVE we should keep this for cross-checking or as a summary. Deletion would be disruptive per WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of fact, there are lots of types listed at List of aircraft (0-A). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this article since 2003 is hardly a reason to keep it, the first time I saw it was a few days ago after it was WLed as a see also at Rank of Commercial-Business Passenger airplanes manufacturer Companies By Production Approx Passenger Capacity Range and I immediately PROded it, which you removed; and then someone else started the AfD process. If I had known about it seven years ago, there would have been a deletion discussion seven years ago. YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redevelop -- I agree with the nominator's assessment of "hopelessly indiscriminate", but I think the solution is not deletion, but to implement some defined criteria for inclusion. Without those criteria, this should be a list with many tens of thousands of entries before it could be considered complete. Off the top of my head, criteria for inclusion might be a number manufactured (say, at least 100 examples) for a mass-produced aircraft or citation in Reliable Sources that say that this is a particularly noteworthy aircraft type for prototypes or experimental aircraft or even aircraft like Concorde. I'd love to hear Andrew D's ideas for the criteria we could use to improve this article. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so your proposed solution to the indiscriminate nature of this, is to impose some artificial and arbitrary exclusion criteria. What then is the pupose of the article, is it to group some aircraft by arbitrarily-selected eras and arbitrarily-selected categories, and ignore the fact that other aircraft exist? I would also welcome an explanation as to why it is important to categorise the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Avro Ashton, the Turbay T-3 and the Hiller ROE Rotorcycle together, or to exclude one or more of those four from a list that all can validly be a member of (research, protoypes and specials 1946-1969). YSSYguy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As rlandmamm points out, this is potentially a list of all aircraft types, with many represented multiple times by different variants/roles/production eras, and each class needs its own list article. But many such lists have long existed and they are being expanded all the time and most of them are sortable on things like date which makes them more useful; what we have here is such an an embryonic beginning compared to the vast number in the lists to be found by browsing Category:Lists of aircraft and its sub-categories, that filtering for the odd entry that can be moved is just not worth doing. IMHO, if this article has really existed since 2003 then this AfD is more than overdue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Looks like a well thought-out comprehensive overview of aircraft; it's not even too long to load or painful to read, which is quite a usability achievement given its broad scope. Probably not very useful for aviation buffs, but definitely worth an article for casual readers, as a starting point to learn more about the subject. Finally, it does no harm and gets plenty of views. Let it live on, for the sake of our audience. WP:Readers first! Arguments to delete sound like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, to which I would answer WP:SOFIXIT. — JFG ^talk 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the section "Research, prototypes and specials" is kind of an unwieldy catch-all; I would recommend forking it out to a separate article, with perhaps some meaningful categorization of prototypes. — JFG ^talk 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that it is manageable is that it is woefully incomplete - even ten times as big would not catch them all. Nor is it a selection of the most notable types, it's just a rag-bag miscellany. There is no point in achieving usability if the information is not worth using. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list contains about 3000 entries and that's about the same as a respectable and substantial work such as The Encyclopedia of Aircraft. This indicates that this is about the right number for a general survey or summary. Obscure types can be covered in more specialised lists which this one can link to. Andrew D. (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is growing fast. It is not as manageable as it was last time I blinked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 aircraft means it is less than 10% complete. It is either going to be manageable and woefully incomplete or unmanageable and complete. Doesn't work either way. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if it were complete it would contain more than 35,000 aircraft. It is of no value to any reader and cannot be fixed in any useful way. We already have List of aircraft, which duplicates most of this and in a more useful manner. - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far to rambling and indiscriminate list that has about tens of thousands of aircraft missing much better dealt with by list of aircraft and the categorisation system (which uses decade and usage). MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split as this is a useful list for readers and satisfies WP:LISTN. This article should be kept as a list of lists, with its current content split into articles like List of civil air transport aircraft by date, List of general aviation aircraft by date, List of military transport aircraft by date, List of civil helicopters by date, etc. which should solve length concerns raised by delete voters above. SST flyer 02:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this a useful list? Nobody has actually explained how they propose to successfully fix it, or why it is important to lump disparate types together in blocks of 15 years or more. Many aircraft fit more than one category, so this could easily have more than 50,000 entries. Take one that I reckon almost nobody outside Australia has heard of, the GAF Nomad; it would validly fit six of the current categories in the article - used as an airliner, used in general aviation, used by several navies, used by the Australian army as a military transport, used as a military reconnaissance aircraft, fitted with miniguns and used by the Thai military as a counter-insurgency air support aircraft. The Beechcraft Super King Air fits five categories. The Beechcraft King Air fits five categories. The category "general aviation" covers any aviation activity at all that is not military or scheduled airline. The balloon on which you went on an airborne safari in Africa? That's general aviation. Take a plane-load of enthusiasts to an airshow in an old Douglas DC-6 or a Fokker F27 Friendship? General aviation. Firefighting with an Ilyushin Il-76 or a Martin Mars or a Fairchild C-82? General aviation. Fly from the USA to Australia in a McDonnell Douglas MD-80, as Bill Clinton did for a speaking tour? General aviation. Operate Boeing B-17s for aerial surveying, as the Institut géographique national did? General aviation. Fly a hang glider off a hill; spray Canadian pine forests for budworms with a Lockheed Super Constellation; spread fertilizer with a Douglas DC-3; film Saving Private Ryan or The Tuskegee Airmen and use P-51 Mustangs, or use a Supermarine Spitfire during shooting of Foyle's War; operate a Fairchild Dornier 328JET or a British Aerospace Jetstream or a GAF Nomad as an air ambulance; skydive out of a CASA C-212 or a Short Skyvan or a Boeing 727 or a Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner; fly company executives around the country in a Douglas B-23 Dragon or a Lockheed L-188 Electra or a Saab 340 or a de Havilland Dove or a Boeing 767.... Of course we could impose exclusion or inclusion criteria, but if you restrict the scope, what is the article for? YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YSSYguy (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since for example the List of fighter aircraft is sortable by date, such date-bound lists are mere dysfunctional duplication. Despite vague claims to the contrary, as YSSYguy observes they serve no useful function. A "list of lists" by aircraft role is useful, but a templated navbox to go in each such list article would be far more sensible than a dedicated article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random and indiscriminate, duplicates other lists. Sandstein 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not completely indiscriminate, but I'd like a more convincing argument than "I like it" or "people clicked on this list x times last year." Bearian (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not indiscriminate list and the inclusion criteria is well defined. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Singh, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YSSYguy, did you read the AfD nomination? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AKS.9955, indeed I did, it says there are no criteria; you say there are criteria and they are well defined, I would really like to know what they are. So, what are the inclusion criteria? YSSYguy (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really an encyclopedic subject and the random inclusion does not make it any use to the reader, that is if they get pass the "what the chuff is this all about" when they first look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable listcruft. The "usage" categorization is quite arbitrary since (as mentioned by YSSYguy) a single aircraft can easily be used for multiple purposes. If we remove that categorization, we are left with List of aircraft by date which I hope everyone sees as the unmaintainable mess it would be.

Of course, "list of fighters", "list of commercial passenger aircraft" etc. sortable by date are all valid topics (or at least could plausibly be) and if someone is ready to sort out all of this let them have their WP:REFUND, but the list right now is little more than a heap of links.

Saying WP:PRESERVE requires to keep a list of links that could be useful if categorized correctly but are thrown around randomly is in my view incorrect. None would say WP:PRESERVE requires us to keep any articles containing valid English words because they can be rearranged in completely different sentences. Similarly, the value of a list is in the organization it provides more than the entries themselves. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One may add that the List of fighter aircraft and many others like it already exist. Most are sortable not only on date but on various other criteria too - far more useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a "list of lists" type of article could be useful for aircraft (as the main list has 0 information about each article and no links to the sublists) but this isn't it. ansh 666 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More suited to categories. The entire list, being sourced solely by other articles, reeks of WP:NOTIINFO and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Keep. To be honest, I've never really understood lists. And, for the most part, I usually feel the same way ~~Class455fan1~~ Ajf773 does; that a category can do anything a list can. But, in this case, I like how the list organizes the entries by two dimensions; type of aircraft crossed with year. So, maybe I'm just saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL, both of which I know are poor arguments, but WP:IAR lets me do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I was only sorting the debate into the transport category.... Class455 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - per Andrew Davidson. --Class455 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only keep arguments are from sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koker (musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this falls in WP:TOOSOON as the subject does not meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has been discussed in reliable sources and it's meets WP:GNG News24, All Africa, Nigerian Entertainment Today, He meets criteria 1, 7, 8 of WP:MUSBIO and he was part of The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation compilation album by Chocolate City..--Obari2Kay (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obari2Kay, you're yet to provide independent sources that discusses the subject in order to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz it is said on independent sources "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and to what that implies is if their are no notable reliable source found on the subject "Koker" Wikipedia should not have it and their are 11 reliable major source on the article Koker that are notable and the 19 unreliable source which does not cover his story but they only cover songs he has been featured on... An this is just by the way; due to some of the articles i read on notable musical artist, i understood if the article meet's one or more of WP:MUSBIO it is set to be notable by Wikipedia; am i wrong or right?.. --Obari2Kay (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of this article has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. He has not been discussed in significant detail. Contrary to statements made by Obari2Kay, the subject doesn't meet the aforementioned criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. The News24, All Africa, and Nigerian Entertainment Today sources mentioned by Obari2Kay are press release info about his singles "Kolewerk" and "Do Something". They are not musical reviews of the singles and can't be treated as such. As of right now, the subject has not been discussed significantly. His musical releases have not been discussed as well. As Oluwa2Chainz already stated, it is simply too soon for a stand-alone article. Koker is probably going to be notable in the near future, but he simply doesn't qualify to have a stand-alone article right now. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is clear on WP:MUSICBIO which say's "May be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" i asked before if i was right or wrong guest am right because it is clear, The article for koker meet's criteria 8 which say's Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy and in Nigeria we recognize Nigeria Entertainment Awards, The Headies, City People Entertainment Awards and more.. An Koker won City People Entertainment Awards in 2016 nominated for The Headies in 2015, criteria 10 which say's "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" and here is a compilation album The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation by Chocolate City and performed in Gidi Culture Festival which is been broadcast on television.. criteria 11 which say's "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." and he has been not just on rotation but also on Chart on The Beat 99.9 FM and criteria 1 an it's say's "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" he has been published works on newspaper articles and magazine articles... So i don't still see your reason on why the article should be deleted, i think you need a more clear reason on why it should.. An due to what you said Versace1608 about the article beening too soon to stand-alone as an article, it is said on WP:TOOSOON "that if WP:ENTERTAINER expands on consideration of entertainment-specific criteria for actors who, even if failing the WP:GNG, might still be reasonably presumed as notable if having.

1. "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" which he meet's (stage performances)..

2. "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", which he meet's (having a large fan base)

3. "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", which he meet's (Making a unique style of music). An on summarize on actors it is said "If an actor cannot meet at least one of the inclusion criteria, it is pretty much TOO SOON for an article to be considered. It is clear that the article is not TOO SOON he meet's not just one of the cities but four of the cities so he should be on wikipedia as a stand alone article...--Obari2Kay (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An one of the links provided by Versace1608 on the Wikipedia deletion for Ruby Gyany Koker was also mention on the article Daily Times.. Ruby Gyang and Koker but have the same issues and the article was Withdrawn by Oluwa2Chainz and here we are for days still debating on this when it is clear..--Obari2Kay (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Versace1608 significant coverage you saying.. An here is a significant detail Naij but the other was a related story Naij an lastly, Some of the artist like Del B, Lola Rae, Cynthia Morgan don't even meet WP:GNG and they have Wikipedia article.. Koker passes WP:GNG, what i have seen is they where only on wikipedia because they met Criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO..--Obari2Kay (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" the article meet up requirement policy by Wikipedia, which is to be followed for ever article written as Jeff Elder said to me in his office yesterday, he also said it was not wrong for me to be on Wikipedia even if i was his PR, he made that clear to me and he emailed me some links to go do studied on and i woke-up this morning by 5am to start writing the article again on Wikipedia and their is an article on Koker but this time it has more notable references than the last time which was only YouTube and iTunes link's which i provided in written it.. It's a Stronger Keep from me due to my study on the article link's giving to me by Jeff Elder.--Chocboyz 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccitymusic1 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is sock puppetry of the highest order. Choccitymusic1 is a sock of Obari2Kay. The later even make edits similar to that of the already blocked Markzy90. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - what a sock puppetry of the highest order. I just got a mail on my yahoo telling me you sent me a message Oluwa2Chainz. Please explain the meaning because i don't get the meaning of sock.--Obari2Kay (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes am a sock puppetry of User:ChocCityMusic but i don't know Obari2Kay an i can remember you emailing me, on my mail saying "your name is Oluwa Miles and you send me a link of Niniola" and you ask me to pay you to write Niniola and also Koker (musician)... I work for Chocolate City and Naija Review and i manage both artist.--Chocboyz 10:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccitymusic1 (talk • contribs)

@Obari2Kay: I believe you are taking things out of context here. I am going to try to clear things up for you. Let me start by saying that notability is not synonymous with accolades. A subject winning or being nominated for an accolade doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. This encyclopedia doesn't care about the number of accolades a subject garnered or the popularity of the subject. In order for a subject to have a stand-alone article written about them, that subject must meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Koker doesn't meet WP:GNG and has not been discussed significantly in multiple reliable sources independent of him. If you do a Google search of Koker, you'll clearly see that he has not been discussed in detail. Koker fails criteria 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. He hasn't performed a theme for a network television show or performance in a television show or notable film. He has been included on a notable compilation album, but since he doesn't pass WP:GNG, this claim can't be used to establish stand-alone notability. Koker fails criteria 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Radio charts are not notable charts and they cannot be used to establish notability. Nigeria doesn't have an official music chart so please don't include charts in your argument. Koker also fails WP:ENTERTAINER. He doesn't have a large cult following and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. He hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The Gidi Culture Festival being broadcasted on TV doesn't make it a television show. Koker's performance at Gidi Culture Festival hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. If you show me reliable sources that have discussed Koker in significant detail, I am going to change my decision. The article you mentioned about Ruby Gyang discusses Ruby Gyang. Koker was only mentioned once. Being mention in an article is not the same as being discussed in an article. If you believe that the Del B, Lola Rae, and Cynthia Morgan articles do not meet WP:GNG, please nominate them for deletion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be reporting User:Obari2Kay as a likely sock of User:ChocCityMusic and User:Choccitymusic1. You guys need to understand the rules of this encyclopedia. Please read WP:RULES before creating another article or editing another page. You can't come to Wikipedia and create multiple accounts in an attempt to sway decisions your way. Please understand that there are guidelines and procedures that editors must abide by. Editors who violate these guidelines and procedures can get blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. If you are blocked on Wikipedia, do not create another account and start editing again. Please don't ever think you'll go unnoticed. The more accounts you create to evade your block, the more you're tarnishing your name and reputation. Last but not least, do not edit Wikipedia for monetary gains. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please read WP:PAID for information on Paid-contribution disclosure. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: here is a source from Tush Magazine that shows that he was been discussed on Tush Magazine and here is a link from Gidi Culture Festival, before you say anything please check this then when you are done then you can check this where he was listed out on the final list on Okay Africa and also on Gidi Culture Festival official web page shows the schedule of every performance Gidi Culture Festival.

Men i wished i could get paid for doing this... You guys should help me in doing research because it's not been easy as a one man doing all this, working at night working at day no time to rest because i love written.. Due to what you said about official chart in Nigeria, we have airplay chart you don't know, since i work with Kiss Fm 98.9 also and the official chart name is Playdata Chart, i know it's new to your hearing because you know nothing about it and am in line with it so i should know better, what have i done now that even Versace1608 wants me to be blocked on Wikipedia.. Men i have tried, i would not kill my self for Koker after all i don't know him and he does not know me.. I have tried i rest my case.--Obari2Kay (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you Versace1608 just google Koker musician or Koker nigeria musician and even on image his pictures would pop-up.. An the name Koker is been answered by so many persons, thing's and places online just like on Wikipedia Danny Koker, David Koker, Koker, Iran, David Koker, Kokers Films, Kokernag, Kokernot Field, Koker trilogy and more.--Obari2Kay (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is also a notable event Felabration and it's has a notable source from Nigerian Entertainment Today [11] have i won your heart in changing your vote Versace1608 , so i can go have some rest?.--Obari2Kay (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is fluff, plain and simple. The requirement for charting is on a national chart, not on a radio station playlist. The fact that an artist plays at an event does not make the artist notable. WP:NMUSIC has very clear guidelines, and they have not been met by a long shot. Even if the label is considered major, the article subject hasn't got the release numbers needed, and that's about the only criteria that's even illustrated by the article. A musician isn't notable simply because he or she has a job to go and play music and does it. MSJapan (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Numerically it's close to a tie, but I discount the first "keep" by a 23-edit-account and the three "keep"s from 28 to 30 July 2016 which do not make any policy-based argunent. Sandstein 19:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Boothman[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion fro non notable bit part actor. Outside of a little local puff, look what this R.I. resident has done, he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. All roles are very minor. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable bit part actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a professionally cited, and independently sourced article. Supporting cast of Jurassic World, has LEGO minifigure, and played Luke Skywalker in Star Wars Battlefront, R.I. articles written about actor that does not live in state. Subject has netted more than $2,000,000 in recent years according to multiple sources. Colby Boothman Sources listed below:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] -- BrianGuestPH (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — BrianGuestPH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Wood, Patrice (June 15, 2015). "RI actor featured in new 'Jurassic World' movie". NBC. Retrieved June 29, 2015.
^ Pacitti, Tony (June 14, 2015). "From Warwick to Jurassic World". Providence Monthly. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
^ "R.I. Native in Jurassic World". Providence Journal. Providence, RI. June 12, 2015.
^ Pelletier, Jenna (June 12, 2015). "R.I. native Colby Boothman-Shepard plays raptor handler in 'Jurassic World'". The Providence Journal. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
^ Nastasi, Alison (August 9, 2012). "Guillermo Del Toro Spills On 'Haunted Mansion' In Horror Bites". MTV.com. Viacom Media Networks. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
^ Barton, Steve (August 6, 2012). "Lots of Last Exorcism 2 Casting News. Is This the Face of Pure Evil?". Dread Central. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
^ Sims, Robert (April 29, 2013). "Interview: Colby Boothman-Shepard, "The Town That Dreaded Showdown"". Lights Camera Austin. Retrieved June 29, 2015.
^ ^a ^b Brannon, Adam (June 22, 2015). "Exclusive: A Chat with Jurassic World's Raptor Handler. Colby Boothman". Movie Metropolis UK. Retrieved June 29, 2015.
^ ^a ^b De La Mare, Jack (June 19, 2015). "An Interview with Colby Boothman - Young Raptor Handler". Retrieved June 29, 2015.
^ Phillips, Sam (October 23, 2015). "GameOverMan Australia – Colby Boothman Interview". GameOverMan Aus. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
^ "What We Learned From The Mythbusters Star Wars Special". nerdist.com. Nerdist Industries, LLC. Retrieved September 18, 2015.

What sources say Boothman has netted over 2 Milliion? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, I found these sources [12] and [13], but I don't know if they are reliable or not. Besides, as you know, net worth is not a notability criterion. I just think he got lucky because he landed an apparently small role in a huge movie. I don't know how actors get paid, but if he's getting money each time Jurassic World is shown somewhere, or he gets paid in some way based on movie revenue, it's no surprise to me that he's a millionaire. Dontreader (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junk sources that copy content from Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Criteria 1 is easily satisfied. Having roles in multiple notable productions, there is no valid reason to delete this article. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BusyWikipedian, if you put it that way, you are right, but criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR reads as follows: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." You omitted a key word. Of course the word "significant" is open to interpretation, but for example in Jurassic World Rotten Tomatoes has him listed merely as "Young Raptor Handler" [14], which doesn't seem significant to me. I would expect a first and last name. In Green Lantern he's merely a stuntman. In The Last Exorcism Part II Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have him listed at all [15]. In Beautiful Creatures Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have him listed as a cast member either [16]. In Hot Tub Time Machine 2 Rotten Tomatoes has him listed merely as "Belligerent Guy at Wedding" [17]. In The Town That Dreaded Sundown Rotten Tomatoes has him listed as Paul Mason [18], so I'll call that one a significant role, although I haven't watched the movie, and he's definitely not one of the main actors. I see no indication of him having a significant role in the Salem TV series (one episode is not enough). In my opinion it's the same situation with MythBusters (merely a guest appearance on one episode, not a regular member of the cast). So I think he fails to pass WP:NACTOR, and therefore WP:GNG would be his only possible salvation. Dontreader (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I explained above why I believe the subject fails to pass WP:NACTOR. Even if other editors decide that his role in Jurassic World was significant, that wouldn't change my mind because it still wouldn't add up to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." In my view, his only chance to survive on Wikipedia at this point in time (he might land a bigger role eventually) is through WP:GNG. But before I examine the coverage in reliable sources, it should be pointed out that the contributions made by the creator of this article indicate that he's merely trying to make this subject seem notable. Now, looking for significant coverage in reliable sources, this one is definitely good: The Providence Journal [19]. I also think Providence Monthly is reliable, although most of this article is an interview [20]. There's an article that has a video showing some rather good coverage that aired on an NBC affiliate that mostly serves Rhode Island, called WJAR [21]. The other sources provided here by BrianGuestPH either don't have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or the links don't even work for me. My own searches haven't found anything else. I just don't think that's enough to pass WP:GNG but I'll change my vote if more good sources are found. Dontreader (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- However, video games are significant productions; I think the film, television, and video game work combined is makes him notable -BusyWikipedian (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm looking at his work and it's significance and I can't seem to compute why this article should be deleted. His involvement in the Star War's video game should help in qualifying the notability. I vote to 'keep'. SravaniChalla (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your going rate for vote stacking? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The artist has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, that is the base of WP:GNG. He has been covered by The Providence Journal, Providence Monthly and WJAR, they can be considered notable reliable sources. Prominent news agencies giving him "on-air" time can not be deemed non-notable. Apart from that there are secondary and tertiary sources available to analyze the claims made within the article. About whether roles are significant or not, I personally believe the young raptor handling scene was most thrilling scene in the movie, I agree it is up to one's personal interpretation. Rotten tomatoes has listed Ryan Gosling's character in Drive as Driver and Viggo Mortensen's character in The Road as Man, I don't think these characters are not significant. Hitro talk 11:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- HitroMilanese, I think the problem is that WP:GNG is open to interpretation. I will write some key statements in italics: ... has received significant coverage in reliable sources ... That is only true in the case of The Providence Journal [22]. Notice that the coverage in Providence Monthly is two short paragraphs, and the rest is an interview [23]. In my opinion WJAR is better, but not by much [24]. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Well, to me it's problematic that only one source that I've found has depth of coverage. Maybe you think there's enough coverage if the sources are added up, but I don't see it that way, especially because I view interviews as primary sources, and I just don't see enough coverage without them. Regarding the movies, that's interesting, but context is important because Rotten Tomatoes shows that in The Road no one has a name, so it's no surprise that Viggo Mortensen's character doesn't have a name. And I haven't watched Drive, but that could be an anomalous situation. Rotten Tomatoes shows only two characters with a first and last name in that movie. I guess you watch tons of movies because that second example is quite bizarre, in my opinion. Good memory! Anyway, I look at this actor, Colby Boothman, and keeping in mind that notability is not temporary, I just don't think he's ready yet. I see too much weight being put on one role which may or may not be a significant one. I haven't watched that movie (Jurassic World). Did he live to tell his adventures? That's always the key question. Dontreader (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sole purpose behind my giving examples of Rotten tomatoes is that that a role can not be judged significant on the basis of character's first or last name. This is not the rationale behind my keep vote. I haven't watched most of his movies, so I can not presume the roles are significant or not. I believe, either subjects pass at WP:GNG or fail at it, there is nothing like partial passing or failing. At the moment, after homogenizing all three of those major sources and other secondary and tertiary sources, I surmise that the subject passes on this criteria. At the same time, I do respect your rationale for deleting the article, it's just that I don't completely concur with it. Hitro talk 17:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm still not convinced regardless of this article's appearance, his IMDb ultimately and basically says it all; still nothing actually convincing and is best restarted when better substance is available. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR as he has not had significant roles in multiple notable films at this point.The subject is 24 years and is upcoming may be notable in the future a case of WP:TOOSOON now. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just read this on my phone and want to research it some and possibly conttibute after I get home, if that's okay. 2600:1:B118:9EC5:A527:70C3:41BC:D9E6 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was attempting to add new citations but it seems that wiki citation is malfunctioning. I'll try again later tonight. Page is in progress with new citations and additional info. I would like to clean up the writing to more of a scholarly approach as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, This is George. I would like to contribute if it isn't too late. I agree with busywikipedian. There seems to be enough evidence to pass the criteria, but, the page seems to be full of bad citations and is overly promotional. I'm working on another page first, but I want to come back and see if I can clean this up some and make judgement if it can stand. Georgeforhistory (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what is wrong with the citations pull-down menu? Wikipage2016 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wiki'ing all day and going to take a break. I did some serious cuts and repairs on this page, what is left looks like it's enough to keep it alive for a while until he earns more credits. It looks like he's gaining at least 2 or more a year so why not let it stay for now. I vote to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete articles in The Providence Journal and Providence Monthly certainly count towards notability, interviews/profiles are a key gauge by which notability of WP:CREATIVE is measured. Unfortunately, when I search for RS, these 2 articles are pretty much all there is. It's probably simply WP:TOOSOON. There should be no prejudice against re-creating this article if/when he lands a major role and/or is the subject of another couple couple of feature/interview/profiles in significant media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ One reason I disagree is the Star Wars inclusion. That alone is enough to establish notability. I've seen actors with much less significance keep their pages. Wikipage2016 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Wikipage2016 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Weak keep for some coverage in RS, and using my ENTERTAINER rule of thumb that several minor roles are the equivalent of one major one. The Steve 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BusyWikipedian and Duffbeerforme: Could one of you explain why it looks like BusyWikipedian's edits over the last year and a half look to focus on duffbeerforme's AfDs? Specifically, to keep them? I see Dethcentrik, other Dethcentrik stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission (2nd nomination), and then almost no edits except to !vote keep on this AfD and The Rust Punk Tribe, both also nominated by duff. Awfully strange, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even stranger, another user, Steffan Sanders only has two edits: inserting Boothman into a cast listing at Detail (TV series)] (as a guest star??), and !voting at the Rust Punk Tribe. There's an awful lot of weird overlap going on. Methinks an SPI is not far. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A review of the keep !votes so far: The only ones coming from editors with more than a handful of edits are BusyWikipedian (see my comment immediately above) and HitroMilanese. The rest are SPAs. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't yet meet either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. A bit part in a blockbuster, very few bona fide reliable sources and then a lot of other coverage in WP:BLOGS doesn't quite add up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he was the guest "star" on Mythbusters which is more than a bit part actor. And, I'm being repetitive, but his association with the Star Wars franchise added, the other parts (Jurassic Park, etc.)are really just supporting the notability. Come on, Star Wars and Mythbusters. It seems that there are personal agendas going to delete this. I'm new so I don't want that much attention, but I'm just saying that some of both sides seem to be personal, keeps and deletes. I want to delete some of the page / edit it because it seems too promotional the way it is, but I still vote to keep. If anyone is associated with the subject you should not be a part of this discussion because it is a COI and it just hurts the case. Don't edit, don't vote. Wikipage2016 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - There are some sources, but it doesn't look like quite enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The fact that this AfD has brought in so many SPAs doesn't fill me with confidence, either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excellent example of a bio of a thoroughly non-notable actor. Minor parts only. If his local newspaper makes a big deal of it, that's the reason why we do not consider such sources to show notability DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider such sources, but I give them less weight, just as I give less weight to minor roles. The Steve 08:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Soweto Uprising. History will be left intact due to the significant interest in a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abiel Lebelo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am finding several news so far but I'm still not seeing anything to actually suggest his own convincing notability for his own article as he's only best and majorly known for that 1 event. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have notified the creator, Bobbyshabangu, of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi user Coolabahapple and user talk, The Abiel Lebelo article is part of the Joburgpedia project where we are working with the GLAM institutions such as the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation and the City of Johannesburg to install qr coded blue plaque in places marked as historical and heritage significance around the Gauteng Province. These qr plauqes link to a Wikipedia page of that historical site. And to mark 40 years of the 16 June 1976 Soweto uprising and in commemoration of those who lost their lives in that uprising, the City of Johannesburg chose to install a blue plaque on the site where Abiel Lebelo was killed, he was specifically chosen because he was one of the leaders of the 16 June Soweto uprising. Bobbyshabangu _talk 08:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A key figure in the 1976 uprising, numerous references in major publications. Greenman (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being shot dead in a riot doesn't automatically equate to longterm notability. Incorporate into existing general article on the Soweto Uprising as part of victim list. Engleham (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but stopping there is a bit like saying Rosa Parks is not notable as she only sat down on a bus. Their role in the events that followed is key. The person is recognised as a notable figure by the Heritage Foundation and by the city of Johannesburg, appears in South African history archives, and is mentioned in newspapers from all over the world. Most of the other ~176-700 victims of the massacres are not receiving this level of recognition 40 years later. Greenman (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Claiming that the subject was a "key figure in the 1976 uprising" is stretching things hugely; I suspect that if he hadn't been a casualty of it, no one would ever have heard of him. Plainly a ONEEVENT case. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am guessing the protest and the march may be notable, but one student being shot isn't notable. This person's death did not spawn a counter revolution or any other notable drama. The movement was already underway. In fact, "By the end of the day scores of protesters had been killed and many more injured" [25]. I agree this is ONEEVENT. This person hardly compares to Rosa Parks - her actions were one of several sparks that lit the Civil Rights movement in the USA. Her actions were a turning point - ultimately causing a paradigm shift. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is African heritage not important? Clearly there's a double standard here, with scores of minor American murder victims getting an article, but an African heritage figure being written off as "one event". Neither response above addresses the fact that's it's 40 years later, and the person is still appearing in newspapers around the world, and is recognised by the primary heritage entity. Please address those issues before repeating the argument. You can equally argue that if Rosa Parks had not sat on the bus, she would also not be remembered, and the Civil Rights movement would have continued and her actions were "just one event". I am not arguing for the equivalence of the two, I am simply pointing out how ludicrous "one event" is out of context. Greenman (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD seems to turn on the policy at WP:BIO1E, namely in what instances is a ~~BLP~~ biography (I apologize for this error) warranted even when a person is known only for one event. Two main questions apply:

1. Was this a major event?

Given the Soweto uprising entry tells us the event is now marked with a public holiday in South Africa (unless anyone is disputing that), this seems like clearly a major event. To pursue the US analogy, this level of public recognition makes the event actually go beyond even Rosa Parks (a planned organizing action that had a major impact): it's more like the assassination of MLK (where there was both planned organizing that had a major impact and also the shooting death of one of the leaders of that organizing, resulting in a national holiday).

2. Was this person a major figure in the event?

The sources indicate Lebelo was one of the planners of the march and, obviously, being among those who died is the very thing that makes the event so significant (as Jeffrey Miller's death is an essential aspect of what made the Kent State shooting a significant event). When we look at WP:BIO1E about how to interpret the significance of someone's role in an major event, it tells us: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King." Since Abiel Lebelo lost his life, it seems to me that his role in the Soweto uprising is much, much more akin to Rodney King than George Holliday.

Given the significance of the event and the significance of Lebelo's role in it, to me this ~~BLP~~ biography passes the notability guideline for a separate entry. Not to mention makes a valuable contribution to an undercovered topic on Wikipedia. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1976 Soweto uprising article creation presumably inspired by the 40th anniversary of the June, 1976 uprising. And the fact that the anniversary was marked by the installation of a plaque honoring Lebelo's death. I think the amount of coverage this event garnered, 40 years on, makes this death arguably notable - although if kept the article should certainly be moved to Death of Abiel Lebelo. The fact that the coverage has not been extensive, and that 1976 Soweto uprising is quite a brief article, means that this could be merged intact to that article. If it is redirected, and if for whatever reason Lebelo's fame/notability grows in retrospect (I can easily imagine a film or book with him as a central figure), there should be no prejudice against separating this out as a free-standing article. Sourcing (I have augmented sourcing on page) suffices to outweigh deletion arguments made above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you think if it were a standalone article, it should be called Death of Abiel Lebelo instead of being a bio--I'm wondering if you can explain your reasoning a little more? I have to say I share Greenman's concern for winding up (however unintentionally) imposing a double standard, since we do have lots of US examples of bios for people whose notability arises from WP:BIO1E, and in particular of police violence that sparked a strong activist movement and social change in response--like Jeffrey Miller and Rodney King as I mention above--but who I think we basically accept as notable because of the significant role in significant event test. I know of course WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm just trying to understand what the difference is here, so as to make sure it's not just that, likely many more of the people who happen to edit Wikipedia have heard of the Kent State shooting or the Rodney King beating than they have of the Soweto Uprising, so we give the latter less weight for no reason other than our own perspective. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard to the point where those 2 examples surprise me. (Just checked, Rodney King died many years after the notorious incident.) Much more usual is Shooting of Tamir Rice, take a look at that AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamir E. Rice, Death of Eric Garner. This is because these people became notable only because of the unusual circumstances of their death, and is the uniform treatment of individuals regarding whom there are no independent sources pre-dating the death, even with someone like Lebelo, who was a SSRC representative. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. We really have different impressions. Emmett Till is done as a bio; James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner who were murdered together and had a small amount of public notice about activism prior to/separate from their deaths (actually quite similar to Lebelo about whom we mostly know of his activism and his death--and of course Till is entirely known for his death, being just a kid when he died) each have a biography; Lamar Smith (activist) another murdered Civil Rights Movement activist is a bio; I hope you'll understand if I allow myself a pause here in reading through these painful examples. Basically in short, that these should necessarily be (or be merged with) event pages does not seem to me to be the existing standard (and I'm not so surprised to find this, given this explicit allowance for those who played a significant role in a major event). You could certainly argue that guideline ought to be changed but I think it would need a larger discussion to find consensus about it: I don't think it's settled that way, at present.

As for the AfD. Quite a lot going on there, but to try to focus on what could be helpful to us I'll note: police shot and killed Tamir Rice on November 23, 2014. By November 29, 2014, Wikipedia had already opened and closed an AfD. I understand the need to settle current events topics for how they'll be handled for the time being, but it also means ivoters didn't know if his death would function as a "major event", to pass that prong WP:BIO1E test. Here some 20 months later, I wonder if many people might feel differently about how significant that event has become; but in any case, the "major event" aspect is really very clear for Lebelo: 40 years on, the event is so significant in South African history, SA has a public holiday dedicated to it. It just really clearly seems to pass the "major event, significant role" test, to me. Again, it's possible this is revealing a flaw in the guideline, but since it seems to have been very often interpreted this way elsewhere, I think the best thing to do for now is grant this subject the same allowance, until there's a clear consensus otherwise. I mean the alternative seems to be, for neutrality, make a project of renaming or merging all the abovementioned pages which... well I'd sure be surprised if that turns out to be a popular move, another reason to solicit commentary for consensus, I think. And good news is--thanks for this!--we have good sources so we're not really going risk leading readers astray with the content in the meantime. It's really just an issue of, how can we present the reliable information this even-handedly. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah for accuracy: want to add I'm now noticing someone had proposed merging Goodman and Chaney's pages to an event page for their deaths--but it was more than a year ago and no discussion ever ensued, not even from the proposing editor (so I've removed the template for now). For whatever that info may be worth. Maybe just more reason to try to sort out an answer (especially once you--I--start reading about people who died in the Civil Rights Movement era, there are a pretty devastating number of entries for which this question could be relevant.) Innisfree987 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1976 Soweto uprising (if he is mentioned there, otherwise delete) as stand alone article not merited. Quis separabit? 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update to say I've added two more secondary sources, in addition to E.M. Gregory's additions. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sadly, delete.~~ Selective Merge to Soweto uprising. I say sadly, because we need to work hard to avoid anglo-european-american bias. But, I just don't see any coverage in major news outlets which would support the claim of importance. I searched directly on the web sites of the NY Times, CNN, London Times (i.e. www.thetimes.co.uk), Times of India, BBC, and Al Jazeera. I got exactly zero results. Al Jazeera suggested an alternate spelling (Abiel Label), but that drew a blank too. Our own Find sources: "Abiel Lebelo" – news link comes up with exactly three hits. One is to Fox News (which is a joke as a serious news outlet) and doesn't even mention Lebelo by name. Another is The Daily Mail which mentions him in passing, in about the 20th paragraph. The third is in Jeune Afrique. That's written in French, which I don't read, so I had to rely on the auto-translation. But, again, this is about the riots, and only mentions Lebelo in passing, halfway through the article. So, I'm just not seeing the coverage we need to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my !vote to a merge. Based on my research above, it's clearly appropriate to mention him in that article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, may I ask what you think of the sources already cited in the article? I believe only one of the nine sources there overlaps with what you found (the Jeune Afrique story you found and Lyral reference I cited are both based on the same Agence France Presse account). Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first impression was that they weren't very good, which is why I did my own search. But, I'll make you my standard offer: if you can pick out the two, and no more than two best sources, I'll take another look at them. The best sources are those with the widest scope: a newspaper with an international readership is better than one that's strictly national, and a national paper is better than a local one. Try to keep that in mind as you select the two sources you'd like me to review. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the utility of that approach; since WP:BASIC says notability can be met on the aggregate of multiple sources, it seems to me we shouldn't limit our examination to any two. But I'll be happy to summarize all those I understand as going toward notability, in case that may be helpful to anyone. (I'm leaving off a couple of sources that I understand as useful for content but not for notability but if anyone else has a different view of those, of course say so!)

1 & 2. International tertiary source (participants include McGill Univ, Univ of York, SMU, Ford Foundation, etc.; entries include secondary source references.) In first reference, three paragraphs on the student group where Lebelo was a leader, the actions they carried out, and then his death. Second reference is a section on another leader of the movement, contains two paragraphs about the group, Lebelo's role, and his eventual death. (Have just added those details to the WP entry, as I think they bear on the entry's importance.)

4. National secondary source, South African Broadcasting Company News segment on commemoration of Lebelo's death with plaque, including interviews with witnesses to his death.

6 (and I would imagine from identical headline, also 8 but it's paywalled for me). International secondary source, Associated Press, via Brockton Enterprise; third slide is a photo of the plaque for Lebelo, with a caption explaining he was among student protestors who were "gunned down by police, appalling the world." Or it's the seventh slide when the story ran on AP's main site, here.

7 & 9 (and also the story Jeune Afrique ran). International secondary source, Agence France Presse. Picked up by outlets on at least three countries, two continents. Different places ran slightly different versions but all cite ceremony unveiling plaque in honor of Lebelo's death, and the following march along the path Lebelo and peers took when police opened fire on them; then the story opens out on how this commemoration bears on South African politics today.

Though individually the sources are limited, together the international notice across countries/continents feels well beyond trivial or routine coverage to me. In any case I hope this summary will be helpful to others in assessing. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy/SNOW keep (non-admin closure). The topic may still be organized into different articles through merger, but that need not be discussed at AFD p b p 02:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Khan (soldier)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both of these articles should be redirected to 2016 Democratic National Convention. Humayun Khan fails WP:MILPEOPLE. I posit that WP:BLP1E applies: Khan is otherwise a low-profile individual and all of the sourcing comes from the appearance of his parents at the convention. Coverage about the ensuing furor does not cause the subject to be generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Khan's parents are also low-profile people and therefore not generally notable:

Keep Coverage in reliable sources is extensive and more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The nomination is defective since it cites Biography of a living person known only for one event. This is not a living person but rather someone who was killed 12 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) @Cullen328: Yeah, I was completely wrong on that count, about BLP. It applies to the parents, but not to the deceased captain. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about the parents as well, who now meet WP:GNG by a country mile, and will most certainly be described in great detail in history books about the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - If all the parents had done was to speak at the convention, then BPL1E would apply. But the give and take, and ongoing media appearances have been going on for five days. This is not a flash in the pan. This will become a part of history, and part of Wikipedia's role is to curate and catalog the reliable sources as they develop over time. Why not withdraw these nominations now, and if I am wrong, renominate in a few months? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Cullen328: I disagree philosophically. None of this coverage is about the subjects. This is really about the campaign. I wouldn't oppose having an article about this controversy but I refuse to believe these people are generally notable. I totally understand how editors would see GNG out of all these so-called news articles. I'd like to think the consensus has better sense than to write about peripheral personalities. I discussed this with the author of the first article. He also created an article about Mitt Romney's tax returns which itself isn't a subject. The subject of that reportage is the political football. I'm correcting a mistake with this AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- w/o the Convention speech, it would have been a Delete vote. But the new section added since the article was nominated changes things. WSJ called the speech a "Convention standout and NPR describes an "ongoing controversy over GOP (...) Trump's response. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge the parent's article into this one. 79.193.104.232 (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, because it's been continuously in the news for over a week at this point. I would've said delete 4 days ago, but since then it has had so much more coverage.--Thalia42 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politically relevant. Google search for his full name "Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan" returns over 5000 hits as of 8/3/2016.--Calcobrena (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This serviceman died over 12 years ago. Is the only motivation for this article his parent's actions at the DNC? Also his father accounts on what happened conflict with this article [26] from the Washington post in 2004. The article claims Capt. Khan was killed at an IED attack on a vehicle checkpoint, a very different story than what is on his current Wikipedia entry. Some research should be taken and a {{Disputed}} warning is in order. 71.183.11.219 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[27] killed June 8 after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty in Baqubah, Iraq. , on a side note as unfortunate as every death is I think this has only come up because of current politics and isnt notable outside of the fact it is currently on the news.--Savonneux (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we are to consider WP:GNG and the extensive coverage afforded to the subject. Merging and giving passing mention on the convention article wouldn't do justice to the topic. Mar4d (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point of that WP:GNG creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included, it isn't the end all be all criteria for inclusion. Generally failing the inclusion guideline for Biographies WP:ANYBIO (which this does by a wide mark), it defaults over the WP:SOLDIER for military personnel. Frankly he died 12 years ago and was barely mentioned as one of many unfortunate casualties in the Iraq War. All the in depth coverage that has developed recently is directly caused by a one time event at a political function.--Savonneux (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His life and death were the subject of multiple independent reliable sources from over a decade ago that we know about: the Washington Post[28][29] the University of Virginia's student paper[30] and even the Government of Virginia (pdf)[31] That he's become sort of a "political football" now shouldn't cancel all that out. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly while those do cover him as a person in depth they are also rather routine for soldiers who die in combat. You can pick any random individual from the Army's list of the fallen and get at least a couple news articles on their life (which isn't something I have a problem with, they should be recognized). Example of a compilation of AP articles [32] for one week in 2010. The Army Times also usually covers them. The Virginia legislature also rountinely passes those resolutions [33] [34] etc. That's why the criteria for WP:SOLDIER is so specific.--Savonneux (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Savonneux, those are some good points which I will keep in mind before creating other articles about deceased soldiers. I was barely cognizant that we had such a policy, but it mostly makes sense (I might take issue with such strict standards being applied to living, captured POWs... but we can have that argument another day). Still, in this case his father, a D.C. lawyer with enough pull to get that WaPo sit down (I posted the wrong 2nd Washington Post link the first time) did just enough to put Khan over the goal line, even way back in 2005, in my opinion. Obviously that's all just a mental exercise now, as the father has since kicked it through the goal posts. Who gets recorded by history has never been an exercise in fairness (Ob arm, ob reich, im Tode gleich). -- Kendrick7^talk 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My thinking when creating the article on the parents was largely along the lines of what Cullen328 says above, and how I described it on that talk page. There's no question that there's enough significant coverage of them to satisfy notability. I think there's more than enough to justify an article independent of the convention, too, given there have been new developments that have kept them among the top national headlines every day since the speech (e.g. just a few hours ago from the NY Times -- not the best source, because it's more about Trump than the Khans, but not all of the sources have to have them as the primary subject). There's a valid question of whether, per WP:BIO1E, it would make sense to move the article about the parents to an article about the speech (not the campaign/convention), but I think a biography is justified and that discussion can always happen down the road. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable at this point & suggest closing this per WP:SNOW cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - extensive, sustained, international coverage; this goes well beyond the usual campaign controversy. I wouldn't mind merging articles about the parents and the son into a single, consolidated article on the entire affair, though. Neutrality^talk 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with this potential consolidation plan, too. Altenmaeren (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - And merge. Seems the most reasonable and easily solved&closed solution from this humble lurker, especially since his fame is due more to his parents. Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the speech was what propelled them, their situation and relevance currently goes well beyond that now. The article is properly sourced and fulfills general notability guidelines. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. GNG is easily met (and not temporary) for both articles. Consolidation and merges could be discussed once this is less of a current event.

Parents: The WP:BIO1E policy on "low-profile individuals" is intended to protect the privacy of people who did not seek media attention and do not want personal information widely disseminated. As explained in WP:Who is a low-profile individual, the fact that they've given multiple scheduled media interviews about their son and political opinions makes these aspects of their lives "public" for our purposes.
Son: WP:SOLDIER starts by explicitly deferring to the GNG. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage...In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if [they meet one of the following criteria]. SOLDIER doesn't say they can't have an article if they meet GNG in some other way. FourViolas (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the parents. The convention speech, Trumps angry reaction, the reactions of military veteran organizations and politicians of both sides to Trump's statements, all appear to be affecting the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. The veteran himself falls under WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to the parents' article. For perspective on this,see deletion debates on Joe the Plumber. The article called Joe the Plumber was redirected to the article about the 2008 political campaign, but the article about the person Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher was kept, even though it was then eventually renamed to Joe the Plumber. The deletion debate itself got press coverage in Columbia Journalism Review. The Keep close by user:BJ said "He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that." I agree with BJ. His Keep close was endorsed by deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber. Such decisions stand as defacto guidelines. Persons known for only one thing can become memes in US presidential campaigns, and remain important in political history, like Willie Horton whose prison release was important in the 1988 campaign with the "revolving door" meme.Edison (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. I would add to the arguments written by Edison above that multiple news sources are beginning to comment on the confrontation between the Khans and Mr. Trump as a significant event. NYT said the confrontation "has emerged as an unexpected and potentially pivotal flash point in the general election", CNN said it could possibly be "remembered as the turning point" in the election, and The Washington Post headlined that the confrontation "could haunt Trump." In addition, pageviews for the parents' article were 42,350 for the past 2 days, and the five-day total for the son's article was 85,598, an indication people are seeking information on Wikipedia about the Khans. I would not object to merging Humayun Khan (soldier) with the article about his parents eventually, but for the time being, I think both articles have the potential to be important additions to the encyclopedia. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as keep Obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. Quite clearly notable per WP:GNG. Filpro (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and rename Khizr and Ghazala Khan to Khizr Khan because of a significant difference in media presence and attention. gidonb (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the renaming, not only because Ghazala has been the focus of major developments (including Trump's original criticism) but because using both names provides a natural solution to the WP:PRECISION problem created by the current subject of Khizr Khan. FourViolas (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Both articles satisfy WP:GNG, and ongoing international media coverage of the subjects on mass scale solidifies the notability.--JayJasper (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unless the war hero has a separete article about him, then do concentrate on the whole family, such that the soldier and the parents are equally represented in the article. -Mardus /talk 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per WP:GNG. This family has received lots of media coverage on their own and deserve at least one article of their own. With that said, I would support a possible merge of Humayun Khan (soldier) into his parents' article, though. Parsley Man (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"YES, Keep" OK to merge pages re family members . I read the delete guidelines. Someone asked me what Khizr Khan did for a living, it was his name that brought me to Wikipedia and to biographical information beyond that in news coverage. I see this as one of Wikipedia's core functions. Mr. Khan has indeed become a notable person, and I have to question how some of this information can be fitted into a page about the 2016 D Convention without there being a link to a wiki page about the Khans. Blueacorneater (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPEEDY DELETE~~. Okay, I'm just trolling jk: snow keep for previously mentioned reasons. In the near future, we can consider opening some sort of merger discussion for the family. ^Falling_Gravity 00:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Browne[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Browne doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. The most coverage I found was from SB Nation, which recently gave him almost no chance of making the final Rams roster. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Browne does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no measure of notability that this article meets. Would change my position if it were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he ever actually plays pro then he will notable, but until that happens he's simply not notable. His college career wan't notable and there's nothing besides his sports career that is even close to passing GNG. Meters (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from Sydney (The Presets EP)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to quite satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NSONGS in that the EP charted on a national or significant music or sales chart (criteria #1). Dan arndt (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a record that actually charted. Could do with more third-party refs about the EP itself, though - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: charted nationally per arndt.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss South Dakota. MBisanz ^talk 17:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Peck[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The winners of US state level beauty pageants are not default notable. There is nothing else besides winning Miss South Dakota that distinguishes Peck at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PERSON. Blythwood (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But I am seeing a lot of discussion at WikiProject Beauty pageants to the effect that state-level winners are notable, and we are seeing navboxes for these as well. So I think a RfC is in order. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss South Dakota Definitely not notable enough for a separate article. Subjects best known for winning a state level pageant are not inherently notable. I would prefer a redirect to Miss South Dakota instead of outright deletion as a mention is already present on the target page (in the list of winners).--Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss South Dakota; valid search term, and the subject is listed there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Penn State College of Engineering. Selectively, and also to other related articles as appropriate. Sandstein 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every reference here is either by the university itself, or a mere notice about a distinguished graduate or about a donation, We normally do not make articles about university departments unless there are excellent sources to show it's one of the world-leading famous departments in its field. From the material in the article, it's only 8th in the US, Thhe only possible notability is a claim to be the first in its subject, a claim that is disputed on the talk page. Even if true, I don't think we've ever accepted an individual department on such a basis.

The material is promotional and non-encyclopedic. There;'s a paragraph listing the individual research labs in the dept, which is suitable only for it's own web page. There's a paragraph listing the various routine manufacturing techniques that its labs have equipment for. Id hesitate before putting that even in a web page. There's a relatively small number of distinguished alumni listed, which should be in the main article about the College to which it belongs. I'd suggest a redirect, butt here's no purpose in a redirect from one articular department, especially where the title starts the name of the donor, an unlikely search term. I've notified the FA nominator.

I know its a FA--it passed Featured Article in 2006. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. I find that almost unbelievable, even by the standards of the time. There were several comments about being well-referenced, but I think even then we had standards about needing 3rd party references. I've notified the FA nominator. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps unsuprisingly). The article as it stands now may require a FAR, thanks to higher FA standards and recent rewrites, but my understanding is that deletion is usually reserved for non-notable subjects, not low quality articles. In light of that I'd simply point out that many of the references are (or were) to third parties: The Daily Collegian is an independent (albeit student-run) newspaper, Bezilla's book was published by the university's press but is not a university publication per se (see his preface), and organizations like IIE and CNC Machining are not affiliated with the university. There are likely more third-party references that could be marshaled in defense of the notability of the department. Still, you won't hurt my feelings if it's decided that a pared down version of this is more appropriate as a section of the College of Engineering article instead. Spangineer^ws (háblame) 02:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent third-party sources. DrKay (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider selectively merging to Penn State College of Engineering or Pennsylvania State University, both of which presently lack even a mention of this oldest industrial engineering department in the world. A merge in this case is more congruent with Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia compared to overt deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any suitable material to one of the Penn State articles, though I'm not sure which -- I see this is listed on the Penn State navbox as a department; if that just represents a subdivision of the engineering college then I agree with Northamerica1000 that Penn State College of Engineering is probably the right target. I think the sources, though no doubt reliable in the sense that this information is all accurate, are not sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The status as oldest in the world is notable and is supported by an independent source. Merger into the low quality Penn State College of Engineering article would be detrimental to both articles - to this one because it would probably be dismembered in the process (I assume that's what "selectively merging" means) and to the College of Engineering article because a disproportionate amount of it would then be devoted to only one of its departments. This article received scrutiny as part of the featured articles nomination process (more than it has received here so far) and notability was not considered an issue there. Finally (and perhaps this last is not a valid objection), I really feel that deleting featured articles generally is a step in entirely the wrong direction. Furius (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete - seems to fail WP:BRANCH; most university departments aren't notable in their own right. There are exceptions like Harvard Law School, the Cavendish Laboratory et al, but this doesn't seem to be at that point.
Being the first department of its kind is interesting and on the face of it seems take it towards notability, but it doesn't stand scrutiny at all, since many older scientific/industrial training institutions were founded as some kind of vocational or technical college and only became a university (or merged with one) later. To give two British examples, the Royal School of Mines was founded 57 years earlier, and merged with Imperial College London in 1907, both before this department was set up. Mason Science College is more than thirty years older; it merged with the University of Birmingham in the end, seven years before this department was set up. Being "the oldest academic engineering department of a specific kind attached to a specific kind of academic institution" is a very weak claim. You can make anything the first of its kind if you apply enough caveats, and the lack of coverage given to this claim outside of the university's own history speaks volumes. Blythwood (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete I don't see much content or sources that verifies notability by itself. Most information is or would be simply covered by the department's own website and is not necessarily encyclopedic material. It says something when DGG nominates an AFD ;). Reywas92^Talk 19:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss World Malta. This seems to be an acceptable compromise to everybody who has participated in this discussion. Deryck C. 16:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Galea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same rationale as before: Fails WP:PSEUDO and WP:ONEEVENT. There is one RS, but it offers minimally significant coverage at best, and then only in the context of the one event, and I really don't think Miss World Malta (pop. 423,000) counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor" for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. Propose redirect to Miss World Malta.

Note: First AfD was inconclusive between deletion and merge/redirection, but with only one "keep" vote, based on IMO flawed reasoning. For this AfD, I propose redirecting to Miss World Malta (without merging the content from this page, which is minimally supported and does not suggest notability—no other winners of this pageant are covered at Miss World Malta; they might be covered there with a table at most). —swpb^T 13:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning a beauty competition in Malta is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NOTE that I do not consider her notable but I have been told for many years now that being a winner of a notable pageant imputes notability. So, in the interest of logic and consistency ...... Perhaps a redirect to Miss World Malta can be considered. Quis separabit? 20:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Told that by who? No such policy or guideline exists in any explicit form, nor should it. It's easy to conceive of a pageant that is just barely over the line into notability (like this one); to declare all its winners automatically notable on that basis is complete nonsense. —swpb^T 13:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, @swpb, but there it is. Just like all high schools are notable. Quis separabit? 23:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where what is? First of all, all high schools are not notable, and secondly, that's a complete non-sequitur. You apparently know that this article doesn't belong here, but you vote "keep" to maintain "consistency" with a standard that doesn't exist. Keep in mind that AfD isn't a ballot—your reasoning has to actually make some sense to count for anything. —swpb^T 12:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@swpb: Sorry to end on that note yesterday. My session at the library ended and I had to edit to save what I had written. As far as beauty pageants go, I had nominated certain pageant winners I deemed non-notable and the AfDs were keep as I was informed that beauty pageant winners are considered notable, although obviously not at all levels, but statewide or countrywide seemed to apply (see [35], [36]).

As far as high schools go (see [37], [38]), I have been told for years that all high schools are considered notable and I am sure I am correct. Sorry for it being an apparent non sequitir but I was trying to say I agree with you (to a certain point, anyway) and comparing the pageant issue with the high school issue, but that may have been a mistaken comparison, so sorry about that. Quis separabit? 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting "all high schools are considered notable" or "pageant winners are considered notable"? Certainly not in the links you gave, which confirm that WP:RS and WP:V are non-negotiable. If anyone ever tells you that all anything are always notable, they're completely wrong. All the topic-specific guides can do is suggest that some types of articles have good chance of being notable; they never excuse articles from the need for WP:RS and WP:V. You really ought to consider changing your "vote", unless you have a completely different basis to support a "keep". —swpb^T 18:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@swpb: What about THIS?? Quis separabit? 18:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that entire guideline. If you can't be bothered to read, I can't be bothered to keep talking to you. —swpb^T 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps suggest there is not much for this person, so going by the WP:GNG, I'll have to say delete, or maybe do the redirect as suggested above, to Miss World Malta.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do indeed consider all high schools with a verified existence notable--essentially all deletions in the last 4 or 5 years have been ones where there is doubt about the real existence or the nature of the school, because WP:V is indeed basic policy. As for guidelines, we make guidelines by what we do consistently as well as what we write down, so it is a guideline in practice -- strictly speaking not that they are' notable , but that we will treat them as notable. But there is no rational way that this can be carried over to any other topic without a discussion. It might be reasonable to assert it as a parallel in an argument that all churches were notable, tho we do have not accepted that. It is not reasonable to use it in argument about people, not institutions, and in a totally unrelated subject. We might want to decide that all winners such as this are going to be considered notable, but we would need to 1/make a relevant argument, and 2/ get it accepted by consensus, explicitly or in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Milivojev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP and notability is not asserted. The individual's name gets ~100 real Google hits. This is simply a vanity bio. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not enough sources to justify inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I looked at this again and I'm not finding anything substantial, including in the subject's native language. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Day and Age (musical)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Play fails to meet WP:GNG. I could find no reliable, independent, third party sources. Pax Verbum 02:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a blob of text, indeed does not seem to have independent souring. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete pure WP:PROMO I dfound no sources at all, and page offers none.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Day[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails wp:n CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the criteria for notability. Numerous awards and there are (referenced) articles including Bloomberg Businessweek. Article could do with a majot cleanup but doesn't need to be deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I attempted to edit the article and remove the promotional material and the irrelevent information on the company. I then realised that a lot of the "achievements" of the company were being attributed to Colin Day. On reflection I don't believe this article meets the basic requirements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my conclusion too. It's a non-notable page masquerading as a notable page. CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the heading "Thought leadership" was a bad sign. Non-notable person, promotional article. Blythwood (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article with not enough evidence for notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etrix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. None of the links given in the article are active, and a google search turns up nothing other than this page. Bradv 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability in the provided references. Aust331 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article on a school event. I am seeing nothing aside from blog photos of the event. Already adequately covered by a paragraph at Loyola_School,_Jamshedpur#Fests.2C_events.2C_and_news (though still inadequately sourced to just that blog); no evidence that the event is notable. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School festivals are generally not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ford Model T. Sandstein 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flivver[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook example of WP:NOTDICT. Aside from containing only dictionary content -- definition, usage, and usage examples -- it's even formatted like a dictionary entry. The word itself isn't particularly notable, and the topic is well covered in other articles. Powers ^T 12:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - worth a section in Model T Ford but has no hope of ever being more than a dicdef article. shoy (reactions) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized {{R from alternative name}} to Model T Ford where it can be mentioned. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it accurate to redirect this to Model T Ford? It seems like it's often used to refer to other vehicles of similar vintage. Powers ^T 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Tuza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable person. Searching for sources only results in brief mentions in interviews or other non-reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator said, there's really nothing--I can't find anything of note either. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I notice that this page has been deleted previously as an expired unsourced BLP. This new page still does not meet WP:GNG. David.moreno72 05:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BreeAnna Marie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician with minimal coverage. Blackguard 03:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my news sweeps didn't turn up anything, such as this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that she does not meet threshold for notability as a singer or musician. Quis separabit? 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Schram[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or, most importantly, WP:ACADEMIC. I conducted a search for him on Google Books and while his research came up often enough, all of the sources I came across were primary ones (i.e., he was the author of the piece, not its subject). This article needs references to reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject himself non-trivially or it needs evidence of having met one of the subject-specific notability guidelines. Right now, it appears to be a résumé. A very good, very impressive résumé, but not a notable one at this point (or so it would appear). KDS4444 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was speedied multiple times and finally AfDed at the Dutch Wikipedia. The primary concerns were having been machine-translated and being a POVvy résumé. I know that nl-wiki has lower standards when it comes to deletions, but I thought this discussion should be aware of the Dutch AfD. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Unquestioned keep. Head of a university. The article is written in the typical manner of academic PR, but it is easily fixable, and I've just fixed it. I'll watch it to revert any `improper content that gets added. DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Pirate Stories[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. Tagged for notability and sources since June 2008. The prod tag was removed by Coolabahapple. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Books and Scholar references above ("Books for Retarded Readers"?! Really...) show ongoing coverage in multiple independent RS'es. Never heard of them myself, but it looks like the article doesn't cover everything out there for these. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Htoo Ein Thin. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A-May Eain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated ages ago, but the AfD wasn't well-attended and no consensus was reached. I've been unable to find any reliable online sources demonstrating notability for this song. Based on the quotes from book sources in the article, the books only mention this song as a one-line example of this singer's ballads and a mention of this song being sung at one point in the life of the author. Neither comes close to the significant coverage required to establish notability. Note also that the article appears to contain a factual error (1998 song released in 1988?), but we lack the sources to correct the error. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Htoo Ein Thin. The factoid and book quote are interesting and might enrich the artist's biography some, but with the lack of sources hardly warrants its own topic. I did a cursory look, and like Rob13 found nothing new to use. Yvarta (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Htoo Ein Thin. Non notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piccola Accademia degli Specchi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN ensemble with a bunch of coatracked material not actually cited in the article because somebody related to the ensemble was mentioned off-handedly by a reviewer. MSJapan (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)

Comment: "Plan"

Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:

at www.textura.org: discussion of the Tazawa CD
at www.acousticmusic.com/fame/: discussion of the Scatter my Ashes CD – discussion of the Music for Moving Pictures CD

So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;

First section about artists and ensembles: current AfD articles that may redirect to this section:
- William Susman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Octet Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octet Ensemble as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Erika Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Matteo Sommacal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteo Sommacal as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Piccola Accademia degli Specchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccola Accademia degli Specchi as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here

Second section about the label's releases. Current AfDs that may redirect here:
- Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Oil on Ice (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil on Ice (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.

(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll "subst:" the template content to the AfD pages in order to avoid creating AfD confusion. Can we keep the centralised discussion on this idea at ~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman#William Susman~~ then (no need to do the same discussion over in the different places)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting to hold discussion on a possible resucitation of Belarca Records as an article in its own right (to which this article could possibly redirect) centralised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate, talk about Belarca goes at Belarca, nowhere else. MSJapan (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Sommacal[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A whole lot of WP:COATRACKing that adds up to nothing, article was apparently created by the subject. Has no musical releases cited to anything, has nothing academic that would meet that either. Local play only on specific programs does not denote rotation. No reviews, no other material that would lead to a sense of coverage. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)

Comment: "Plan"

Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:

at www.textura.org: discussion of the Tazawa CD
at www.acousticmusic.com/fame/: discussion of the Scatter my Ashes CD – discussion of the Music for Moving Pictures CD

So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;

First section about artists and ensembles: current AfD articles that may redirect to this section:
- William Susman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Octet Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octet Ensemble as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Erika Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Matteo Sommacal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteo Sommacal as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Piccola Accademia degli Specchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccola Accademia degli Specchi as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here

Second section about the label's releases. Current AfDs that may redirect here:
- Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fate of the Lhapa (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep
- Oil on Ice (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil on Ice (soundtrack) as "redirect to Belarca Records" instead of delete/keep

Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.

(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll "subst:" the template content to the AfD pages in order to avoid creating AfD confusion. Can we keep the centralised discussion on this idea at ~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman#William Susman~~ then (no need to do the same discussion over in the different places)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except this has nothing to do with Susman as an artist, and therefore nothing to do with his AfD. You're creating a WP:NOTINHERITED problem, which is what is trying to be cleaned up in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting to hold discussion on a possible resucitation of Belarca Records as an article in its own right (to which this article could possibly redirect) centralised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Tazawa. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubage (video game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantive coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep - got reviews, claims in article backed up. (Which is why I saved it from PROD.) But pretty marginal - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources you're referencing. GamerBytes only existed for several months and there is no archived version of the website. XNPlay and WorthThePoints are patently unreliable—no editorial hallmarks. And Ars Technica is a passing mention. There is literally no extant coverage of this game. czar 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable independent sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Condition Records[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability; mentions listed on talk page do not constitute significant coverage. —swpb^T 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 17:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a micro-stub of an advertorial on an unremarkable company. Sources are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails some combination of WP:N and WP:V. The argument that they are notable for being a national team doesn't seem to hold sway with the other editors who participated, and certainly, hoping that somebody else will provide sources isn't a valid argument for notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada national korfball team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable sports organization with no coverage in reliable sources, despite apparently being a national team. —swpb^T 12:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems notable for being a national team, hopefully some Canadian editors can supply some offline reliable sourcesAtlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That fact alone does not demonstrate notability. Being a national team suggests the topic might be notable; it does nothing to show that it is. It's an obscure sport; it's perfectly reasonable that even a national team would not be notable, and the complete lack of sources backs that up. Please remember that AfD is not a vote—comments must make valid arguments to be considered. —swpb^T 17:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per NSPORTS, if a sport is notable enough for a wikipedia article, then as a rule the national teams (at least of major nations) are also notable. That said, I would like to see more sources. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor Montanabw: Read the very first paragraph of WP:NSPORT, particularly the bolded sentence. In the absence of RS, all other criteria are irrelevant. Then read the basic criteria section. NSPORT doesn't at all support your position. At all. Which makes sense, because it's absurd to believe that if a sport is minimally notable, all self-declared national teams must be notable. Please make your arguments based on what policy and guidelines actually say, not what you want to believe they say. —swpb^T 13:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - swpb, Korfball is not listed at NSPORTS. And while obscure compared to baseball or something, it was an Olympic demonstration sport and there are multiple international teams today. So please do not attack other editors. Let people who !vote on this issues each have their say. The closing admin can weigh the arguments. A basic google search brings up many RS to improve the quality of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - To editor Montanabw: I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your arguments, which deserve to be attacked because they offer nothing of value. Oh, a Google search turns up RS? Which ones? I see a lot of completely irrelevant results. Perhaps that's because you haven't put any effort into filtering that search to ignore irrelevant results. Try this search (the one I did before nominating the page) to get some idea of how notable this topic really is—a bunch of unattributed Wikipedia mirrors, and absolutely nothing that could be called significant coverage by a reliable source. You're right that the closing admin will weigh the arguments, so with that in mind, maybe offer something with weight. —swpb^T 12:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, please get a grip. And "they offer nothing of value" is belittling, attacking language. The proper thing to say is, "I disagree" and make your own case. This is not the hill I'm going to die on because I really don't have intense feelings about Korfball (though it's fun to say the word, "korfball"). Frankly, if you are filtering out the major two sanctioning bodies in your search, that's a problem. The reasoning is simple: 1) Does the sport itself meet WP:N? Yes. So 2) Do the international sanctioning bodies that govern the sport consider this one of their major teams? Yes. Therefore, 3) WP:N is met. Maybe not by much, but reasonable minds can differ without your scorched earth approach. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I shouldn't need to explain to you that the organization that runs a sport isn't an RS for establishing the notability of its teams. Why should I pretend you've offered something of value when you haven't? Would you really be happier if I tore apart your arguments with coddling language? The content will be the same. —swpb^T 16:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you have to "tear apart" anyone's arguments at all? You made your case, I made mine, Northamerica1000 relisted it as not having sufficient discussion. You have nothing to prove with me and I have no interest in dying on the hill for Korfball. Now drop the stick and move on. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget notability, this one fails WP:V and may be a hoax. If such a "team" even exists, there would be at least 1 reliable source right? But there is none. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the BBC reference in the article doesn't support the content at all. I have removed it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this seems like a hoax or a good case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. No information can be verified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more careful about saying "hoax." There clearly IS a Canadian Korfball Association: [39], [40]. It is also mentioned as a "real" sport in Canada here: [41] (41st in the world, but hey...). It looks like the Winnipeg-area team IS the national team. As I said way up early on, it's a weak keep, but it's not a fake and it's not a hoax. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[42] This link has precisely 3 words "Canada Korfball Association". And nothing else even mentions canada
[43] This link lists members of IKF and lists a "Canada Korfball Association" located in "Canada"

That's it. There is absolutely nothing else which even mentions that there is a national team. (The rankings do not mention the team either)

Since there is no evidence, I cannot assume that "Canada Korfball Association" == "Canadian National Team" (See WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED). Not one reliable source says that a "Canada National Korfball Team" exists. (In fact, the article contained an unsourced sentence that there is a "North America" team which consists of US and Canadian players combined). I see this as something which fails WP:V.

And even if I were to assume that "Canada national korfball team" is actually the "Canada Korfball Association", it would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH which it clearly doesn't. Either way, this is a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That might be a solution -- create Canadian Korfball Association, move this text, edit and expand. From what I can tell in some general chatter, this team is based in Manitoba and appears to be the only team in Canada that competes in assorted competitions, saw one link that mentioned a US/Canada game in passing. Would a merge and redirect of this sort work for you? Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had though of that at first. But when I got down to searching for sources, I couldn't find even one reliable independent source which talks about either "Canada Korfball Association" or even "Manitoba Korfball Association" (there was one post in a forum but nothing more, and even that doesn't really contribute anything to the information). More importantly, an association would need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH for which there are simply no sources available. I see this as one case where sources are simply not available to even verify the most basic information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, such a solution would obviously not work, because it clearly does nothing to resolve, or even address, the central problem of demonstrating notability. —swpb^T 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Surprisingly few people were attracted to comment on this AfD, despite being listed for three weeks. There's a lot of discussion here, but as I read through it all, I can't pull out any killer arguments on either side, so I'm going to call this NC, with no prejudice against a renomination if somebody feels it's worth further discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omaramba River[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misspelling of Omuramba, and a misunderstanding of the meaning: There is no one specific omuramba (dry river bed) but there are many of them in Botswana and eastern Namibia. Each of them have separate names, and some of them have articles, e.g. Eiseb. Pgallert (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (See below. My initial !vote was Merge): The Omaramba River article was created in 2012‎; Omuramba was created in this initial version, better than its current article, in 2005. "Omaramba River" was a known river in 1920; a photograph of it appeared in the Illustrated London News, Volume 67 ([44]) with caption: "Flood time in Ovambaland: Inundations Caused by the Flooding of the Omaramba River near Ondaga." There are a number of other Google book references in the 1920s. And it was photographed in 2014 ([45]} with caption: "Captured below is the Omaramba River flowing through Onguma during the rainy season which finished in April. This refreshing site is quite a contract to the dry pans experienced during the dry winter seasons."

The Omuramba article is confusing, too: at first its wording seems to me to be saying that the Omuramba is one usually dry river bed, and then seems to imply that an Omuramba is any dry river bed in the region. Would it be correct to change the lede to "An Omuramba is any one of several dry river beds in the north-eastern part of Namibia or the north-western part of Botswana, in the Kalahari Desert." ? When it rains and these rivers run, perhaps they do not drain into any final destination but rather fade out in the desert? Or do some of them ever drain into a permanent river or lake? Are they in one or more Endorheic basins? Whichever it is, please say so. I wonder if the region had more moisture than it does now, and if some or all of these did sometimes run into a permanent lake or a river that did go somewhere. Anyhow the term "Omaramba River" is used in history and recently too, and it is notable by wp:GEOLAND as a river or a former river. There should be just one article though, and since Omuramba is the older article, merge. --do ncr am 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this recommendation. Omuramba has a plural. I'm unaware of any proper name that does, so it is a generic term. There is a nice and comprehensive Wiktionary entry about it in German: [46]. Merging a real river into an article on a type of river, does not make sense to me.
I also don't understand how an old misspelling can somehow be "knighting" a new misspelling. There was never an Ovambaland (It is Ovamboland), there was never an Ondaga (It is Ondangwa). Why would there be an Omaramba? Furthermore, the river described in the article under discussion, is nowhere near Ondangwa and must therefore be another omuramba. Finally, a lodge web site is no RS for the name of a river.
Now, there is a river called Omuramba Ovambo [47], one of the tributaries to Etosha Pan, mentioned e.g. here: Ekuma River. That might be this river, because if I follow the river south of Tsintsabis (cf article text) on Google Earth it indeed leads to Etosha. This river also crosses Onguma but that reasoning is of course OR. So if we absolutely must keep this article it should rather be moved to Omuramba Ovambo than kept at its old place. And there should be no redirect, because we also do not redirect "River" to anything that has a "River" as part of its proper name. --Pgallert (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to be clear about singular and plural nouns. By "Omuramba has a plural", I read it first to mean that you were trying to say that Omuramba is a plural noun. But Omuramba says that "An omuramba ... is an ancient river-bed", and you go on to say that because omuramba has a plural, it must be a generic term. What, pray tell, is the plural of omuramba? Omuramba? Omurambas? I am hoping you know. Please say, and allow us to tell the reader what is the plural noun term and otherwise to reword the lede sentence of the Omuramba article for clarity.
You say that merging a real river (you mean Omaramba River?) into an article on a type of river (you mean Omuramba) does not make sense. Okay then great, we are done. Please withdraw the AFD. Because a permanent or intermittent river named Omaramba River really has existed, as shown in sources that appear reliable, such as the Illustrated London News. And you clearly do not want to merge; you don't want modify the Omuramba article to suggest that various rivers/riverbeds may have been termed "Omaramba River" or "Omuramba River", including the one described in the Omaramba River article and mentioned in sources, which I would have been willing to do. So we really are about done at AFD, I think, and this should be closed Keep. I change my !vote to "Keep", above, with apology if I am missing something here.
A loose end is that maybe the river termed Omaramba River in the 1920's is the river now termed Omuramba Ovambo, so a note about that should be added to Talk:Omaramba River. You or anyone can open a wp:Requested Move there to move/rename it to "Omuramba Ovambo", but that is not a matter for AFD. --do ncr am 05:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you misunderstand me here but that might well be my fault. Omuramba=1 ancient river bed, Omiramba=many ancient river beds. That is right in the Omuramba article in the very first line. But part of the story might also be that you're not trying hard enough. There never was an Omaramba River. Not in the 1920s and not in 2014. It was a misspelling (Omaramba) and misunderstanding (that Omuramba be a proper name), indicated by two things: 1) In the news clip of 1920 virtually everything else was misspelled, as I have pointed out. Therefore there was no native speaker involved, and the London News at that time were thus no a reliable source for a spelling of a river in Africa. 2) A construction like "Omaramba River" or, in correct spelling, "Omuramba River" makes no sense as Omuramba itself means "river". Namely, an ephemeral one.
From satellite imagery it is clear that there is indeed an ephemeral river at the described location. 2 photos, unlikely to be fake, furthr testify to that. So we were indeed done if I could move Omaramba River to Omuramba Ovambo... not leaving a redirect and not being able to provide a single independent source confirming the name. But to do that I was neither able (no redirect) nor willing (no reason backed by sources). For the time being I can prove that no Omaramba River exists. That why we're here at AfD. If proper sources can be found I can write Omuramba Ovambo at some later stage. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification about plural. Frankly, the parenthetical expression which you point out indicates the plural form ("An omuramba (pl. omiramba, Herero word) ....") was NOT clear. If this was a Wiktionary entry then I might have figured that the "pl" was for plural, but I do not recognize that format for Wikipedia articles. I think I assumed it was meaning something like "plus in Herero, the word is spelled 'omiramba'", while disliking the fact that the article didn't say what language omuramba was from. Maybe I didn't get it because we don't write encyclopedia articles that way...see car, apple, goose, whatever...I don't see that dictionary definition-like parenthetical being used anywhere. In these edits, I have just boldly edited the article and moved it to Omiramba. I hope you will agree this is okay/good. I think it is far better than the previous version, but please do make corrections if I am still not understanding correctly.
You are complaining that an English language term which pretty much translates as "River River" is silly. But that is how the English language often works. I can't think of other examples just like that but I know that there are. (And does it matter that omuramba simply is not equivalent to the English word "river" ...according to the article it is a term for dry riverbeds in the Kalahari Desert only, you cannot use it to describe a riverbed in a Mexican desert.)
Are you not being a bit petty now, saying you want to delete Omaramba River article and only later, sometime, create an Omuramba Ovambo article, rather than moving it? In the article I believe it will be reasonable to explain that this Ovambo river is likely the one meant by some usages of Omaramba River in the 1920s. Factual question: is it likely the river photographed in 2014? And it will be reasonable to create the redirect from "Omaramba River" to there, in fact I feel like promising that I will create it because it is reasonable, if somehow this gets closed with a deletion. Frankly it would be best to move the article right now during this AFD, then call for closure of the AFD. There is no reason to delete the edit history, and there is no reason to prolong this AFD. Another alternative is to redirect "Omaramba River" to "Omiramba" and explain there how the "Omaramba River" term has sometimes been used but is imprecise. Pleae do inform me how I am still misunderstaning anything. --do ncr am 06:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we are indeed getting somewhere. Ja, it might be petty wanting to delete Omaramba River. It is just that the only reference is offline and very unspecific (Namibian Getaway is, iirc, a directory of tourist accommodation some 300 pages thick, and in a different edition every second year). I have a few sources for Omuramba Ovambo, but they do not back up the specific claims of the article here under discussion: barbel fish, location near Tsintsabis, San people, etc. I'm not a fan of creating a new article without proper sources.
I can't say to which river the pictures belong, partly because I cannot see them ;) [Google books' access level depends on location; I only see the book cover in your link.] But even if I could see them I probably could not say where they were taken. Flooded rivers are a pretty standard feature during rainy season.
Not sure why you moved the Omuramba article to the plural form... Other articles are predominantly at their singular, like mountain, river, etc.? Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unaffiliated editor came via Africa alerts; Hope I can help. Google books only has 10 hits for "Omaramba River" and Google Scholar has zero. (Lexis also has zero relevant hits) In addition, most of the google book hits are duplicates of a single mention to a place that had "vast forests" See here, page 18 WARNING-BIG FILE as google only has snippet view of this source. This is a clear delete for lack of "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV): indeed, it appears to fail both the significant part as it has no real sources and the coverage part as no sources give more than a passing mention to the place. In addition, the article lacks any real content to merge. The only "sourced" content is tourist promotion. Finally, checking with publications and websites of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry of Namibia revealed no discussion whatsoever of "Omaramba River". See: here for a report on ephemeral rivers with no mention and feel free to search for the term here and get zero results. Not notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kennewick High School. Sandstein 19:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil F. Lampson Stadium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Its a high school stadium. There is nothing in the article that asserts any claim to notability. It does however seem to be a coatrack for quite a bit of promo content. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It hasn't hosted anything but high school athletics and a regional band competition, so it's definitely not notable enough to warrant this. Perhaps the prose would be better used in either the city article or the articles of the high schools. Sounder Bruce 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kennewick High School and mention briefly under Kennewick High School#Athletics. It's not notable enough for it's own article, but it's a plausible search term and at least deserves a mention in the article about the school. Smartyllama (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's about 726 news results for the stadium. It's used for professional and amateur sports, and hosts concerts and festivals. I'm not sure what else you'd be expecting to see in order to keep it. Red Slash 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the articles appear to be local articles in a local paper that covers every high school foootballgame, and mentions the place it was played. That's incidental coverage only. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kennewick High School. I haven't done any research on this, I'm just commenting to point out that a unless there's some specific reason not to (and I don't see one here), a redirect is pretty much always ~~a good idea~~ preferable to deletion, if there's a plausible target, which there is. Per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page about the high school. It does not seem as though there is any coverage that is not incidental. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ugly Mane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to notability. The fader article is virtually nothing....certainly not the discussion in detail required. BEFORE turned up nothing more compelling. John from Idegon (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per Fact magazine articles. Also reviewed by Tiny Mix Tapes ([48], [49]). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources shown above are significant coverage particularly the quite long reviews so that WP:GNG is just passed Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I rewrote the article and included sources. As you can see, he has been noticed not just by The Fader, but by Pigeons and Planes, Tiny Mix Tapes, Mishka NYC, The Needle Drop, and more. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Joe Lewis (martial artist)#Kickboxing and full-contact karate career . MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the past Afd's statement and the fact the individual has no notable accomplishments outside another more notable martial artist's performance. ALongStay (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a state karate champion and success as a brown belt do not show notability. The coverage is focused on his second round knockout loss to Joe Lewis. Lewis was the source of the claim (years later) that Baines was considered the top heavyweight in the nation. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Lewis (martial artist)#Kickboxing and full-contact karate career Nothing indicates he should have his own article. Essentially being Lewis's uke in that fight is, at best, WP:BLP1E. There is no significant independent coverage of him besides this fight. I'd have no problem if this article was deleted, but I think I'll stick with my vote from the original AfD. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as described above. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy van Ettinger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub Correctron (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stub is not a valid reason for deletion, there are many stubs on very notable subjects, she has a cult following, sources needed Atlantic306 (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on the page. No sources or anything. Is there any proof she's notable?Correctron (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the fact that there is no source other than IMDB, she is only "known" for having a very minor role in a small-budget project of two movies. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JTtheOG. No clear claim to notability has been established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not for reason editor proposing deletion has mentioned ("Stub" was all s/he wrote). This is an actress who's had a few minor roles in some very minor movies. Doesn't satisfy GNG. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable. Blythwood (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjukta Parashar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable mid level police official in an Indian state Uncletomwood (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is head of police for a district with 2 million people, this seems notable to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, I kindly request you to please have a reading of how the Indian bureaucracy and police systems work. A Superintendent or even a Deputy Inspector General of Police or for that matter even an ADG of Police does not show any sort of notability if not provided with clear references to substantiate notability. As Necrothesp, just commented, she's just an SP. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's just a superintendent. That's equivalent to a field-grade officer in the army. Far too junior for any inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is classic BLP1E along with incorrect claims. 2 of the articles cited [50], [51] apparently claim that she is the "first female IPS officer in Assam". I decided to look further and found this HuffingtonPost article [52] which clearly says the claims were incorrect (and that makes me actually question the reliability of the former 2 sources). Without this claim, I see this as BLP1E - a flurry of news items about an otherwise low profile individual but nothing that proved the person is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IndiaToday is not in general reliable DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manyang Mayom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manyang Mayom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a CV for a non-notable person Horstvonludwig (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved this from the article talk page. ansh 666 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself frankly planned to PROD but had not yet in case it was removed, there's simply still nothing at all convincing for establishing his notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article ("Mayom is most popular and strong influential") which fails to establish subject's notability. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article was speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bandomoss[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources. - Mr X 11:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDF9:92A0:E8D2:5296:76B4:67FC (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote not to be deleted. Give the article time to be finished properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandogang (talk • contribs) 13:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Before being relisted it was suggested to give this article time to be finished. A week later nothing has been added that indicates notability, just verification that the subject exists. Otherwise, completely lacking of independent, third party sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet our criteria for music and for articles in general. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K L Dhingra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NonNotable Indian Businessman. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is mostly a résumé, written in a highly promotional, that fails to establish subject's notability. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A CV sourced only to routine announcements, which demonstrates that the subject has had jobs but fails to establish any rationale for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't even come close to passing GNG. In addition, there is nothing to show that the subject is independently notable of his associations with the organisations/companies. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be kept at Wikipedia. The person is a philanthropist as well as a notable businessman. There are certainly more reliable sources cited in the article than just a CV. The article passes GNG because there is significant coverage in several kinds of reliable sources that are independent of the person the article tells about. Thank you. Donald1659 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show some of the reliable sources where the subject is covered in detail? I can see none. Note that the subject must also be independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:BURDEN is on the keep !voter to demonstrate notability, not make a claim of notability. I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and couldn't find anything. They immediately fail WP:SIGCOV and "there must be sources" is an WP:ATA. Mkdw ^talk 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others mentioned, the notability outside of association is not established, plus the tone reads too promotional currently and is in danger of leaving nothing behind if removed. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Urban Dance Factory[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero independent RS. Prod removed with irrelevant statement. —swpb^T 13:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending source check: Creator appears to be a newbie. I am going to notify them that they need to add additional sources to the article and see what happens. swpb, did you do your WP:BEFORE search? After eliminating the cruftlinks in a search, I found some sources, but I don't speak Spanish, so someone else will have to assess. Here's what I have found and they look independent of the subject and to be more than a mere directory listing (of which there were dozens). [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] (the last few are dancer bios, apparently listing the place on their resume -- there were at least another dozen of those pages beyond what I put in here) Montanabw ^(talk) 22:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did BEFORE, and not one of the links you gave constitute significant coverage in a reliable source.

[61] offers no evidence of reliability; the text there is most-likely written by someone connected to the subject.
[62] is an employment website—not an RS.
[63] gives the most passing of mentions, not significant coverage.
[64] doesn't offer evidence of being reliable, and only includes a passing mention.

I don't intend to break down the flaws with every single page Google spits back; if you want to argue that sufficient sources exist, you need to be able to point to them. Simply throwing numbers of Ghits out, without investigating them, adds no value to this discussion. By the way, your browser almost certainly supports translation of pages to English. It's not perfect, but it's more than good enough to figure out whether a page is likely to be an RS, or offers coverage of any significance. —swpb^T 13:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You look at four examples but cannot be bothered to look over the rest? Seriously? I did investigate them running some through translation, and I disgree with your assessment. What I found were that there were dozens more of these dancer resumes on these "employment" pages (as you call them) that list this program, and I only pulled a smattering. The "passing mentions" are more than adequate to me, and when you look at the sheer number of people who credit this program for their training, it is clear that this program has a strong reputation for what it does within its niche. My view is that WP:N is met. Places like this are often harder to find coverage on than the artists they produce. I have stated my view on this matter and I see no reason to change it, so I suggest we simply wait for others to weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor Montanabw: I looked carefully at every single link you posted (which I consider to be far beyond due diligence, given your demonstrated lack of ability to discriminate), and they're all worthless; I didn't bother to write about every single one, because I'd be repeating myself. You may consider a passing mention "significant coverage", but that's not what WP:GNG says. You may consider a job posting site with an obvious financial connection to be an RS, but that's not what WP:BIAS says. Not only are these things disallowed in guidelines, they've never been allowed in practice. (Not that you'd be aware of that; guidelines and precedents you don't like don't seem to exist to you). So no, N is not even close to met. And yes, we'll wait for someone else to tell you that. —swpb^T 15:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You see, you really must stop personalizing this. I advise you to lay of the personal attacks. We disagree, that's all. This disagreement does not mean that either of us somehow have personal failings in the civility or intellect department. So stop making "you" statements. Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Swpb is mean" isn't an argument for "keep", and "we disagree" is an attempt to create false equivalence. There is no equivalence. The wiki meaning of the words "reliable", "independent", and "significant" are not up for renegotiation in every AfD. —swpb^T 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do not twist my words. The bottom line is that WP:NPA is policy, just as WP:N is policy. So you can disagree and argue without personalizing things. If you can't make your argument without attacking the other person, then you don't have much of an argument. Now, let's allow others to weigh in on the issue. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim of notability whatsoever, none of the sources mentioned above consists of significant coverage in a reliable secondary source and none of them confers notability. The page is just unverifiable fuss and pure promotionalism. In my searches I have found anything but false positives and unreliable/ primary sources. Cavarrone 21:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH by a wide margin. Organisations/companies require in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. This is clearly lacking here. The sources are either passing mentions or non-RS. The intent here also seems to be to promote the school. Delete as clearly not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the references do not show notable , and I agree with }}U|Lemongirl942}} that the article is considerably promotional DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] [1]

[imdb-2] IMDB page

[3] "UAF student wins Miss Alaska USA crown". KTUU.com. 2007-12-17.

[4] "Fairbanks woman named "Miss Photogenic USA" at pageant". Daily News Miner. 2008-04-11.

[5] Peterson, Michelle (2008-04-11). "Fairbanks student competes tonight for Miss USA crown". Daily News Miner.

[6] Wood, Patrice (June 15, 2015). "RI actor featured in new 'Jurassic World' movie". NBC. Retrieved June 29, 2015.

[ProvMonthly-7] Pacitti, Tony (June 14, 2015). "From Warwick to Jurassic World". Providence Monthly. Retrieved June 28, 2015.

[8] "R.I. Native in Jurassic World". Providence Journal. Providence, RI. June 12, 2015.

[9] Pelletier, Jenna (June 12, 2015). "R.I. native Colby Boothman-Shepard plays raptor handler in 'Jurassic World'". The Providence Journal. Retrieved June 28, 2015.

[10] Nastasi, Alison (August 9, 2012). "Guillermo Del Toro Spills On 'Haunted Mansion' In Horror Bites". MTV.com. Viacom Media Networks. Retrieved June 28, 2015.

[11] Barton, Steve (August 6, 2012). "Lots of Last Exorcism 2 Casting News. Is This the Face of Pure Evil?". Dread Central. Retrieved June 28, 2015.

[FantasticInterview-12] Sims, Robert (April 29, 2013). "Interview: Colby Boothman-Shepard, "The Town That Dreaded Showdown"". Lights Camera Austin. Retrieved June 29, 2015.

[MovieMetro-13] Brannon, Adam (June 22, 2015). "Exclusive: A Chat with Jurassic World's Raptor Handler. Colby Boothman". Movie Metropolis UK. Retrieved June 29, 2015.

[JWORG-14] De La Mare, Jack (June 19, 2015). "An Interview with Colby Boothman - Young Raptor Handler". Retrieved June 29, 2015.

[GameOverMan-15] Phillips, Sam (October 23, 2015). "GameOverMan Australia – Colby Boothman Interview". GameOverMan Aus. Retrieved November 17, 2015.

[16] "What We Learned From The Mythbusters Star Wars Special". nerdist.com. Nerdist Industries, LLC. Retrieved September 18, 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]